Sitting of 20 January 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Northern England
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's policies to bring new industry to the north.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): We seek to ensure that the north and all other regions in the United Kingdom benefit from the prosperity which new industry brings.
    During the past six years our policies and grant incentives have enabled the north to attract £2 billion of inward investment creating or safeguarding 15,000 jobs.
    Mr. Mandelson: To everyone listening in the northern region that will seem a pathetic reply, especially when regional assistance to it has been cut by 78 per cent. since 1979, unemployment has been higher there for each of the past 20 years and when the recovery was weaker in the second half of last year than it was in the first
    Will the Minister give an assurance that, when he makes his announcement on regional assistance, there will be no reduction in assisted area status for any locality in the northern region? Will he give a commitment that the funding of the Northern Development Company will be maintained in real terms? When will the Government create the one-stop business advice centres, a network of which they promised us last year?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has not managed to improve on his record when he was advising the previous Leader of the Opposition. He does not appear to know the unemployment figures in his constituency, which have fallen sharply since 1986, and he completely downgrades the tremendous success of the northern region in attracting companies such as Nissan and Fujitsu. I am suprised that he, as a new Member, does not spend more of his time praising the people of the north, the Northern Development Company and other organisations on their spectacular success in attracting inward investment to the north.
    Mr. Devlin: Has not the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) just quoted figures that were bloated in 1978 by the massive subsidies paid to loss-making industries, particularly steel and shipbuilding? Is not it the case that, since then, we have diverted much of that money more profitably and usefully into Teeside development corporation, Tyne and Wear development corporation
    360
    and the Northern Development Company as well as a host of other agencies that have brought new investments to the north and are currently constructing several new advance factories, one of which I shall have the honour of opening on Friday?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I very much hope that inward investors will look to the messages delivered by my hon. Friend rather than to those of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Minister would be better advised to use his energy to answer the questions specifically put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rather than simply trading in personal abuse.
    I put the same question to the Minister. Against the background of rising unemployment in the north of England in the past two years, the loss of jobs in manufacturing industry and the fact that much industry in the north of England is dependent upon regional assistance, will the Minister give the House a clear commitment that no area in the north will lose under the review of the assisted areas map?
    Mr. Eggar: I am delighted to be exchanging pleasantries once again across the Dispatch Box with the hon. Gentleman now that he has followed me from education. Obviously he has not done his homework in this new area of responsibilities. He knows perfectly well that we await decisions on regional assistance in the light of the current overall look at the map.

    Energy Review
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the conclusions of his review of the Government's energy policy.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of British Coal about the future of the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I hope to be able to publish the coal review White Paper as soon as possible next month. As part of the review process I meet British Coal as necessary to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Nicholson: Any fair-minded person will recognise that resolving the problems that my right hon. Friend inherited will require some cost—whether financial, legislative or ideological. Will my right hon. Friend carefully examine the case for more private enterprise, rather than more subsidy, in the coal industry? Will he also take a hard look at the hidden subsidy that the British consumer pays, through the channel link, to the French nuclear industry and to the dash for gas?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's concern in such matters and I assure him that both the Select Committee and, I hope, my Department have carried out an extremely comprehensive and thorough review. I hope shortly to put the findings of the review before the House and I assure my hon. Friend that the matters that he has raised will be included in our review.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State investigate the astonishing claim made earlier this week by the chief executive of Scottish Power that, towards the end of last year, British Coal did not even bid for a contract to supply 800,000 tonnes of coal to Scottish power stations, so that Scottish Power had almost no option but to go for subsidised imports? In view of the Government's complete lack of an integrated energy policy and the fact that the Secretary of State was found guilty of flouting the law by unnecessarily closing pits, will the right hon. Gentleman face up to his responsibilities and intervene to save the British coal industry, or resign and make way for someone who will?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the specific issue of tendering for coal supplies to the Scottish electricity industry or any other consumer is a matter for British Coal. I shall certainly draw the attention of British Coal to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. British Coal is charged with the responsibility of advancing the interests of British coal and it must decide whether to bid for contracts. As to the hon. Gentleman's general observations, he will find that our review will be extremely comprehensive and we shall look carefully at the large subsidies in the energy industry, many of which we have sought to reduce during the past decade to fulfil our energy policy objective of providing a diversity of supply at competitive prices.
    Mr. Robathan: In my right hon. Friend's deliberations on the future energy policy of the United Kingdom, will he take into account his Department's renewable energy advisory group recommendations, in particular the generation target of 1500 MW by the year 2000 and the idea of a renewable energy obligation? Will he also look into the sensible use of combined heat and power and municipal waste-to-energy schemes? When is he likely to make his decisions on those matters?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises two more aspects of the wide-ranging review that we are conducting. I assure him that we shall deal with both matters when we produce our White Paper.
    Mr. Fisher: As part of his review of energy policy, will the President of the Board of Trade give the House the time scale for the review of the 10 pits ordered by the High Court? Will he assure the House that that review will be no less thorough and rigorous than that of the 21 pits? Will he allow coaling to start in the 10 pits so that the reviews may be of equal parity and importance and conducted on an equal basis?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have asked Boyds—an internationally respected firm of consultants—to introduce the degree of independence to the consultative processes now under way in the light of our judgment of the court findings. It is now for Boyds to conduct the review and we have asked it to look at the evidence and the state of the pits. That matter was also raised in the light of the assurances given by the chairman of British Coal to myself, the Select Committee and the courts. It is for Boyds to determine the speed at which it conducts its review, which must be done thoroughly. It is for British Coal to consult the unions on whether they accept the element of independence that the appointment
    362
    that I have made could provide in the circumstances. When the exercise has been conducted and I have received the report, I shall ensure that the House is fully informed.
    Mr. Kynoch: While conducting his review of energy policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a proper balance between all forms of energy, with particular reference to the North sea oil and gas industry, which contributes an important amount to the economy of the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Heseltine: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that all aspects of energy provision are considered in our review and that is what we are doing.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Has the President already forgotten that since last Question Time, the courts have ruled that his decision of 13 October was unlawful and that his decision of 19 October to shut 10 pits was both unlawful and irrational?
    Would not the rational response to that ruling be to let the miners who clock on at those pits every day go underground and dig coal? Why, then, does not the right hon. Gentleman instruct British Coal to reopen the 10 pits that it unlawfully shut? As he has told the House that he has met the top people in British Coal, who will all keep their jobs, will he say which pits on the list he has visited during the review and what meetings he has had with the people working there who face the sack?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we have continual discussions with British Coal, which is responsible for the management of pits. We have not instructed British Coal to resume coaling at the 10 pits, for the simple reason that it advises us that it does not need the additional coal. It already has large stocks, both at the pithead and with the generators. The contractual prospects for British Coal would not justify the additional cost of extracting that coal now.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that my local council—Labour-controlled Kirklees—is imposing smokeless zones on the rural parts of my constituency, despite the fact that the council's own figures show that emissions of smoke and sulphur dioxide are well within the legal limit? The result will be that hundreds, if not thousands, of local households will switch from burning coal to burning gas. Is not that Labour hypocrisy in action?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend brings out one of the less attractive features of the controversy that has surrounded the pit closures. It must also be said that we have not heard a great deal from the environmental lobbies, which were so vociferous in urging us to achieve better environmental standards in this area.

    Mining Industry
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's support for the British mining industry.
    Mr. Eggar: We are engaged in a wide-ranging review of the prospects for 21 of the pits proposed for closure by British Coal, in the context of the Government's energy policy. We shall shortly be publishing a White Paper setting out the results of that review, which will then be debated in the House.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give an undertaking that in view of the High Court's ruling that British Coal and the Government acted unlawfully in closing the 10 collieries, which include Parkside in my constituency, he will ensure that the criteria under which Boyds reviews those collieries will be exactly the same as the criteria being used in the review of the other 21 collieries? Everyone could then be sure that those 10 collieries were getting a fair deal.
    Will the Minister give the House and the country a further undertaking that the miners at the 10 collieries will not be dismissed, at least until the House has had the opportunity to debate the Government's review of the future of the British coal industry?
    Mr. Eggar: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, Boyds' report on the 21 pits plus the additional 19 will be published. With regard to the report on the 10 pits which my right hon. Friend has asked Boyds to prepare, both the unions and British Coal will be consulted. We assume that that report will also be published and made available. At that stage, the House will have an opportunity to consider it, as well as the report that is shortly to be published on the 21 pits plus the additional 19.
    On the latter part of the question, there will be no compulsory redundancies until there has been a debate in the House, until the review has been published and until the House has had an opportunity to discuss the White Paper and the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
    I apologise for the length of that answer, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that many thousands of miners are finding it extremely difficult to decide on their future before they know the future of their industry? Therefore, will he talk to Mr. Clarke urgently and ask that the special redundancy and early retirement arrangements be kept in force for at least another six months so that those men are relieved of the intolerable, agonising pressures that they face at the moment?
    Mr. Eggar: We are acutely conscious of that point, which Mr. Neil Greatrex of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers made to me this morning.
    Mr. Skinner: The 90 days are almost up.
    Mr. Eggar: We have said—I think that this must be right—that we should not make any decision, nor should we press British Coal to make any decision, in advance of the publication of the White Paper, because that obviously has a bearing. The two are interconnected.
    Mr. Hardy: Before reaching any conclusions, will the Minister take particular care to consider the total cost of the closures as well as the sterilisation of large volumes of coal? Will he take even more care in considering the recommendations of the electricity regulator in the recent report on electricity purchasing which appears to ignore the costs of production and reaches conclusions that are not justified by the facts, which are known to the hon. Gentleman, his Department and every hon. Member who is concerned about this matter?
    Mr. Eggar: Of course, the matters mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's first point will be considered as part of the review. The responsibility for the report is Professor Stephen Littlechild's, but, as the hon. Gentleman would
    364
    expect, that report is one of the factors that we shall consider as part of the review. It may help the House, as the matter was raised from a sedentary position, if I add that the 90 days is the minimum consultation period.
    Mr. Alexander: Bearing in mind the huge anxiety among the mining communities about the final outcome, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that the Boyds' report on the 10 pits and the reports of the Select Committees on Employment and on Trade and Industry will all be the subject of the Government's conclusions in their White Paper before we come to the House and discuss it with a view to determining our future energy policy?
    Mr. Eggar: It will be important to have those documents available, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the coal industry faces a major crisis at the beginning of April when there are no contracts for coal. If we were to delay the publication of all the documents in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, no coaling at all may be possible on 1 April. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want that, but I shall bear in mind his other points.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Minister clarified his reply to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in relation to the 90-day period and the special redundancy terms that have been offered. Will those redundancy terms remain on the table until the various problems that flow from the court decision are resolved? Can we take it that the offer will remain for as long as it takes to resolve the matter? That is the men's worry at present and the Minister was not specific in his reply.
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. First, I repeat that the 90-day consultation period is a minimum period, so no miner should be under the impression, as I understand some are, that on 30 January the position will suddenly change from what it was on 29 January.
    The hon. Gentleman's second point relates to the end of March date for the present voluntary redundancy terms. To clarify the matter, we are acutely aware of the concern about that, but we do not think that it would be right either to announce that the scheme will stop on that date or that it will be extended beyond that date, in advance of the publication of the White Paper and the other papers. Those decisions must be taken in the light of the White Paper. I hope that the House will understand that.

    Manufacturing Productivity
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the change in manufacturing productivity for the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Manufacturing productivity in the three months to October 1992 was at record levels, 2 per cent. higher than in the previous three months and 5 per cent. higher than the same period a year earlier.
    Mr. Dunn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would he care to speculate on what those figures might be if all the restrictive practices that we abandoned, abolished and swept away were reimposed according to the policy of the Labour party?
    Mr. Sainsbury: That is a good point. It is ghastly to contemplate where we might be if we had not introduced our reforms of industrial relations law, in the teeth of persistent opposition from Labour.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that in the real world, under a Conservative Government, total employment in manufacturing continues to decline, particularly in the west midlands? Instead of planting silly questions such as this, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what action the Government will take to save this vital sector of British Industry?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are to have an internationally competitive manufacturing sector, its productivity must be of the highest standard. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that, because of our changes to industrial relations law, productivity growth in manufacturing industry since 1979 has been three times as fast as that achieved under the last Labour Government.

    China (Ministerial Visit)
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister for Trade to the People's Republic of China.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I made a visit to Guangzhou between 3 and 5 January with a team of 20 senior business men, to pursue important opportunities in the fastest-growing region of the world. I made clear our long-term commitment to a significant expansion of trade between the United Kingdom and China. Our substantial commercial presence in Hong Kong has a vital role to play in this process.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful journey, which was made at a difficult time for Anglo-Chinese relations. Does he believe that British business is taking full advantage of the opportunities that China has to offer?
    Mr. Needham: I do not think that we are taking full advantage, but we are taking much greater advantage than we were even a year ago. As my hon. Friend said, there are immense opportunities for British business in China. We have a long trading relationship with the country, which is one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. It is a market which we must and will enter and I am sure that we shall be successful in it.
    Mr. Bell: The Minister will be aware that we have sold nose-cone radar for fighter aircraft to the Republic of China. Last time the issue was raised in the House, he told us that there was a ban on arms trade. Is that ban extant?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, Madam.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend ensure that a rather vociferous and sometimes short-sighted minority in Hong Kong does not imperil our relations with the Republic of China, on which so many jobs and so much else will depend in the future?
    Mr. Needham: The governor's proposals for the 1992 elections strike me as entirely consistent with both the Basic Law and the joint declaration. China has been invited to discuss those proposals with us; in the mean time, our trade with China continues. The vice-premier of
    366
    China, Zhu Rongji, and the mayors of Suzhou and Shanghai have recently visited this country and I have every confidence that business between our two countries will continue to grow.

    Cultural Programme
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current cost of the cultural programme administered by overseas trade division 3 of his Department.
    Mr. Needham: My Department does not normally administer cultural programmes. However, overseas trade division 3 had a budget of £1.4 million for the cultural and entertainment programme connected with Expo 92.
    Mr. Cohen: Did the existence of that cultural programme come as a surprise to the Minister and his officials? Is not that symptomatic of the absence of any serious promotion of British trade abroad? Are not the Government so ashamed of the Britain that they have run down over the past 14 years that they cannot promote British culture or help our exporters?
    Mr. Needham: I was not in the slightest bit surprised by our cultural budget for Expo. We can teach anyone in the world about culture, and we did so at Expo. The British day was the most successful of all national days at Expo because of our immense cultural attainments.
    Mr. Duncan: Given the importance of our cultural programmes overseas and the fact that the Sri Lankan Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Abeygunasekera, is currently visiting the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm his belief in the importance of our trade and cultural relations with Sri Lanka and, indeed, our admiration for that country's domestic policies?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, although Sri Lanka is rather far from Seville.

    Mining Equipment
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the mining engineering sector.
    Mr. Eggar: Our policy, as for all other sectors of industry, is to help United Kingdom companies to compete successfully at home and abroad.
    We are working closely with the industry to give our suppliers every proper assistance.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: As the Minister will recall, I have already expressed my concern about the implications of Government policy on the coal industry for the export efforts of the British mining engineering sector. Is he aware that the British Jeffrey Diamond Company in my constituency has developed an award-winning leading edge technology in switched reluctance variable speed drives? [Laughter.] That is what it says here. Is the Minister aware that there is major export potential, but that the company and the industry as a whole are concerned that Government policies for coal are destroying the future potential of such products, which can earn for Britain, because our shop window to show these products is being destroyed with the British coal industry?
    Mr. Eggar: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading his hand? I am aware of the importance of the British coal industry to the British mining equipment industry and I understand the difficulties to which he drew attention. It is right to point out that the mining equipment industry has been a successful exporter which runs a positive balance of trade surplus. We are working hard to help it to promote exports in areas such as China.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of a company called Wallacetown Engineering in my constituency which specialises in electrical mining equipment? It currently has representatives in China seeking new business in view of the difficulties in the coal industry. There are encouraging messages, but may I have an assurance that the Department of Trade and Industry will do all in its power to encourage and help companies such as Wallacetown Engineering?
    Mr. Eggar: It was precisely to help such companies that I went to China, and for precisely that reason that we are seeking to reach an agreement between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and Chinese banks to facilitate coal equipment exports.

    Engineering
    Mr. Butler: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet motor manufacturers to discuss measures to support the engineering sector.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will be meeting the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and senior representatives of the leading vehicle manufacturers later today.
    Mr. Butler: At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance, as set out in detail in the Bangemann report, of pre-competitive co-operation in the development of high technology products? Will he also bear in mind moves to encourage further inward investment which, in successful areas such as Milton Keynes, now accounts for 18 per cent. of our employment?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend on both points. He mentioned inward investment. The success of inward investment evident in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, is attributable largely to the creation of the right economic climate, a climate of low taxation, good industrial relations and minimum regulation—the very factors which would be most put at risk by Labour's policies.

    Burdens on Industry
    Mr. Gill: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in ridding industry of unnecessary legislative burdens.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): We have taken a wide range of measures in Whitehall, in town halls and in the European Community to promote deregulation. For the first time, all Government Departments have had to undertake a census of their regulations. Following that, by 1 April they will be providing me with their candidates for repeal and simplification.
    368
    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly be announcing the terms of reference of a scrutiny of the formulation of European Community law and its implementation and enforcement in the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will shortly be holding a seminar for Cabinet and other Ministers and senior civil servants to impress on them the importance of achieving results in the deregulation initiative before the next Government reshuffle.
    Mr. Gill: I am sure that many people employed in the wealth-generating sector of the economy in my constituency and in the rest of the country will be encouraged by my hon. Friend's positive response. Will he assure the House that, in considering those important matters, the Government understand that what bothers the entrepreneur and imposes a high cost burden on industry is not just one individual piece of legislation, but an amalgam of hundreds of them?
    Mr. Hamilton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the greatest burden of regulation falls upon smaller businesses. That is a tremendous distraction from wealth creation and job creation, and we at the Department of Trade and Industry are determined to play our part in reducing that burden.
    Mr. Trimble: May I draw the Minister's attention to the problems experienced by exporters, especially in the implementation of the single market? Their job has not become easier, despite no longer having to regain certain classes of papers, because under the new value added tax regulations they have to find out the VAT numbers of the persons to whom they are exporting. They have considerable difficulty, especially when dealing with countries where the cultural attitude to tax matters is different from our own.
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree that, although the single European market offers great opportunities for businesses in this country and, overall, has reduced the burden of regulation, there is still much more that can be done. I am keeping a wary eye out for opportunities to reduce the burdens. If the hon. Gentleman comes across any examples among his constituents' businesses, I should be grateful if he would send me the details.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Most hon. Members will give enthusiastic support to my hon. Friend's vigorous campaign to get rid of unnecessary burdens and overbearing Government measures affecting all sorts of industries, but will he ensure that he is informed of any new burdens proposed by other Departments, especially regulations and secondary legislation? Supported by the President of the Board of Trade, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that, at the highest level, Ministers are told to bring proposals to him first to find out whether they are really necessary?
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has been a doughty fighter in the cause of deregulation for many years in the House. Each Department now has its own deregulation Minister, whose responsibility within that Department is to ensure that if any new regulations are proposed they are proportionate and not too costly to businesses in this country. The deregulation initiative is centrally co-ordinated from

    369
    within my Department, so I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall subject proposals from other Departments for increased regulation to the closest possible scrutiny.

    Dangerous Toys
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many warnings have been issued by his Department under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to manufacturers and distributors of dangerous children's toys.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): Since October 1987 my Department has served 18 prohibition notices on named companies prohibiting them from supplying toy-like items which were considered to pose a choking hazard. My Department does, of course, from time to time offer informal advice to traders on matters relating to the safety of toys and other consumer goods.
    Mr. McAvoy: With so many official recalls of dangerous children's toys, kettles, car tyres, washing machines and electric light bulbs, is it not clear to the Minister that his system is ineffective and leaves tens of thousands of consumers at serious risk from dangerous products?
    Mr. Leigh: No, I do not take that view. Trading standards officers are responsible for enforcing the Consumer Protection Act. The hon. Gentleman's original question referred to toys. Under the directive on the safety of toys, trading standards officers have all the powers that they need. That directive is extremely detailed and lays down strict criteria as to how toys should be manufactured and retailed. There is no evidence that trading standards officers do not have sufficient powers to ensure that toys are safe.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that have a very great vested interest in receiving a successful answer to my question as I am a purchaser of toys for my god-daughter—his daughter? I believe that consumers, both purchasers and recipients, should have the benefit of some kind of British safety standard so that it might at least be clear that a toy is safe for my hon. Friend's daughter.
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be relieved to hear that if he were to attempt to buy for my daughter anything called Splat Balls, Splat Eggs, Splat Tomatoes, Slime Balls, Sticky Balls, Tacky Wacky Wall Rollers, Spike Balls, Sticky Flying Hammers, Hand Hammer Sticky Catchers, Sticky Hand, Sticky Flicker or Sticky Troll, that would be illegal under consumer protection legislation.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How does the Minister defend the present recall system, which leaves four out of five dangerous articles in the hands of consumers? The system is ineffective and open to abuse by manufacturers and retailers.
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a slime ball and should get his tacky hands off—[interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. As hon. Members will have seen, I was rather distracted when the remark that has
    370
    caused the interruption was made. However, from the reaction of the House I take it that it was made in good humour.
    Mr. Leigh: Of course it was made in good humour, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman and I get on extremely well in respect of all these matters, as he knows.
    This is a serious matter, and if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence we shall ensure that it is passed to trading standards officers.

    Debt (Late Payment)
    Ms. Lynne: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has to tackle the problem of late payment of debt.
    Mr. Leigh: The Government are already addressing the problem of late payment with a range of measures, including pilots with trade associations and new Government contracting terms.
    Ms. Lynne: Does the Minister agree that late settlement of debt has caused many small businesses to go to the wall, not only in Rochdale but throughout the country, that this has led to increased unemployment and that the trend will continue in the foreseeable future? Does he agree that Government measures to date have not ended late settlement of debt? Is it not time we had a statutory requirement that interest be paid on overdue debts?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady is, of course, correct in saying that this is a very serious problem for small businesses. We keep these matters constantly under review, and we have an open mind about the question of a statutory requirement that interest be paid on overdue debts. The problem—a difficult and serious one—is that it would simply result in larger companies' imposing longer credit terms on their contractors. Other countries in the European Community have such provisions. France and Italy are examples, but their late payment problem is worse than ours. Denmark and Germany, too, have such provisions, but the fact that they do not have the same problem is probably due as much to cultural factors as to statutory controls. Most small business organisations—such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Commerce—support our present stand.
    Mr. Tracey: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members have campaigned for many years for improvement in respect of the question of late payment, which is so very debilitating to small businesses, especially at this time? Does my hon. Friend know that small businesses say that some of the biggest companies in this country are among the worst payers?
    Mr. Leigh: I pay tribute to the campaign waged by a number of hon. Members with regard to the late payment problem. As well as keeping an open mind about the need for legislation in the future, it is vital that the Government should set an example—indeed, there is a requirement that Government Departments pay promptly, within 30 days —and to ensure that prompt payment goes down the line to subcontractors. The campaign waged by hon. Members has had an effect on Government action, and I am delighted to say that the Association of District Councils

    371
    has taken up the campaign with regard to the need for prompt payment by local authorities and that trade associations, too, are following the problem through.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Henderson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on changes in the manufacturing base of the economy.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Over the 1980s, manufacturing output grew at the same rate as in Germany, and faster than in France and in Italy. Output in the three months to October was higher than at the end of 1991.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware of the plight of the machine tool industry—a key high-tech and capital goods industry at the heart of the British manufacturing base which has lost 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom market in the past three years? Will the Minister tell the House why he thinks that that has happened? What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate that the machine tool industry has suffered severely during the recession. It is understandable that it would be one of the industries likely to suffer most and therefore it is equally likely to benefit as the upturn comes, so long as we retain the competitive position that we now have with low taxation, less regulation and a competitive exchange rate.
    Mr. Rathbone: What actions have arisen in Government policy in the light of the submission from the Engineering Employers Federation?
    Mr. Sainsbury: It was an interesting submission and we have studied it carefully. We have discussed and will continue to discuss it with the Engineering Employers Federation. As I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, a careful reading of the report—rather than some of the press comment that accompanied its release—will show that there is much in it which is being done or has already been done on the recommendations made to the Government.
    Mr. Turner: Will the Minister accept that the manufacturing base is fast disappearing in the black country of the midlands—an area in which there was more wealth created per acre than anywhere else in the world. The latest casualty is Cannon Industries in Coseley. Unless we can save it, the plant is to be closed, with the loss of 900 jobs. The company has been trading satisfactorily for the past 175 years and makes top-quality products—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now doing a public relations exercise instead of putting a question.
    Mr. Turner: Not at all.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his question.
    Mr. Turner: I am speaking for the 900 workers who will lose their jobs, and for their families. What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I wish that the hon. Gentleman could use his public relations skills to praise the achievements of British manufacturing industry. Manufacturing output— [Interruption.] The Opposition may not wish to hear, but the country should know that manufacturing output is
    372
    now one fifth higher than it was 10 years ago, manufacturing investment is one third higher, productivity is more than one half higher and export volume is four fifths higher.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I entirely endorse the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). What response will my right hon. Friend give to the Engineering Employers Federation on the excellent campaign that it has launched? Will he admit that the manufacturing industries of this country, together with construction, are the only source of non-inflationary economic growth? What action does he intend to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the two Budgets this year to broaden our manufacturing base? Although my right hon. Friend gave some optimistic forecasts and statistics, the fact is that we have one of the narrowest manufacturing bases in the European Community.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing industry. I am sure that we share the wish to see the manufacturing base expand. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement responded very adequately to the needs of manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Cousins: The Minister will recognise that the British aerospace industry, which is our largest exporter, is facing a period of considerable change and difficulty. Last Friday the largest order for cargo aircraft ever placed was placed with Boeing. What action has the Minister taken to ensure that British Rolls-Royce engines are used for that order?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member is well aware of the difficulties being experienced by the aerospace industry internationally, partly due to the cutback in defence requirements. My Department works closely with the aerospace industry and keeps very close contact with it in all its aspects in order to promote the interests of British manufacturers. I am happy to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the export achievements of the aero-engine sector and Rolls-Royce in particular.

    Industrial Competitiveness Division
    Mr. Page: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the work of the industrial competitiveness division.
    Mr. Heseltine: I attach great importance to the work of the industrial competitiveness division, which is central to my drive to make the Department of Trade and Industry a real partner to British business. The division provides me with a wide range of advice on the United Kingdom's competitiveness, based on research at home and abroad, which I take into account when considering Government policy.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am delighted that he takes information from that division into account in formulating Government policy. That is a change from what some of his predecessors have done. Nevertheless, does he agree that it is vital for the information gathered by the division to be disseminated to British industry so that industry knows where it is lacking

    373
    and where it can compete to drive out imports and increase exports? Will my right hon. Friend please say how he will get this information through to British industry?
    Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said. He will realise that we have a wide range of contacts with British industry, both large and small companies. The purpose of the competitiveness division is not to produce one jumbo report, but to continue to advise us. We shall therefore use all the avenues available to us, through the sectoral divisions or through the one-stop shops that we are pioneering, to communicate information to the companies where appropriate.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When can the right hon. Gentleman get the problems of manufacturing at the head of the Government's agenda? When shall we see an end to the indecision and drift which are at the heart of industrial policy in Britain today? Would it not be better to invest in manufacturing rather than go for quick profits from privatisation sales?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I feel that perhaps the hon. Gentleman is putting a supplementary to the wrong question. We are here concerned simply with the division in the Board of Trade which is concerned with industrial competitiveness.
    Mr. Heseltine: I understand the point that the hon. Member was making, but I am at a loss to understand how he can criticise the Government when his own party has produced a budget designed to cut back on the levels of investment in British industry by a windfall tax on consumers of British-manufactured products.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement about the coal industry.
    Mr. Heseltine: If I may, Madam Speaker, I will answer this question and question 18 together—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I was not informed that questions 15 and 18 were to be linked. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal only with question 15 at this stage.
    Mr. Heseltine: In that case, Madam Speaker, I will not answer question 18 in conjunction with question 15.
    The answer to question 15 is that the Government are conducting a wide-ranging review of the prospects for 21 of the pits proposed for closure by British Coal. I hope to be able to publish a White Paper as soon as possible next month, setting out the results of that review, which will then be debated in the House.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that, according to the High Court, the review turned out to be illegal, that the 90 days' consultative period is up on 27 January and that miners at some of the pits are being told by local management that if they do not take their redundancy pay by this weekend they will lose their £10,000 supplementary redundancy pay? It is a form of blackmail. We need an assurance that since the Government acted illegally and the High Court has ruled that the consultative period must be extended, those redundancy payments will be extended as well. We
    374
    expect better from this Government, who ought to have been surcharged—especially the right hon. Gentleman, who has cost the mining industry £100 million, including miners' lost wages. If he had been a member of a Labour council, he would have been surcharged.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the courts did not deal with the review that we are talking about. However, I wish to deal very seriously with the essence of his point, which is about the availability of the redundancy terms. The redundancy terms are available until the end of March, and it is clear—[Interruption.] No, the official 90 days—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was ever interested in the answer to any question, he would listen to what I have to say because it is vital to the people whom he represents and, of course, to a wide range of other hon. Members' constituents.
    The consultation period, which ends at the end of January, is a minimum consultation period. We have made it clear that there will be no steps to close mines until the House has had an opportunity to debate the issue in the context of the White Paper. We have made it equally clear that the redundancy terms will still be available at that time.
    Mrs. Peacock: Following the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy to a question on the special redundancy scheme, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that scheme could continue after the end of March as the matter is causing great concern to many miners and their families?
    Mr. Heseltine: I quite understand the point that my hon. Friend raises. I can assure her that we shall deal with that issue in the White Paper and that the redundancy terms will be available until that review is published, and then we shall clarify the future.
    Mr. Cunliffe: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will he now clarify that, as the British Coal 10-day pit closure was declared invalid and illegal, the 90-day consultation period is meaningless and invalid? Will he now give a categorical assurance, as the Prime Minister has written to the miners' parliamentary group saying that the 10-pit review which he has now spoken about is independent of the other 20 pits and that the 90-day consultation period must be introduced again from the day the right hon. Gentleman presents the review to the House?
    Mr. Heseltine: Obviously, I have read with great care the judgment which, of course, has not yet been perfected; nevertheless, I have read all the evidence that I can. It seems to me that the judge was saying that I should ensure that there is a degree of independence in so far as it lay to me to do so. It was with that in mind that I appointed Boyds to conduct the review of the 10 pits. The point remains that the 90 days is a minimum period. I have made it absolutely clear that, before any further decisions are taken in terms of the closure of those pits, the House will have an opportunity to debate the outcome of the White Paper.
    Mr. Oppenheim: What conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw from the fate of Kloeckner, the leading west German steel maker which recently declared bankruptcy

    375
    because of Germany's high-price energy policy and because of Germany's policy of protecting its coal industry from competition? Does that not show that, if we protect one industry from competition, we simply load costs and job losses on to others?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend obviously makes a most important point, which underlies our determination to achieve competitiveness in British industry. It would be inappropriate for me to analyse the precise reasons for the failure of that steel company in Germany, but it is absolutely self-evident that the British Government have negotiated to ensure that some of the more onerous social costs of the German economy are not imposed here.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister reassure the House that his White Paper will take into account the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and of the Employment Select Committee? Is he aware that the chairman of British Coal, who told the Employment Select Committee that he had been too busy to go down any pit to meet affected miners, has announced that tomorrow, by a strange coincidence, he will go down a pit at precisely the time the Employment Select Committee is to put out its report? Did the right hon. Gentleman know about that? Were the Government told that that unworthy public relations exercise was to happen?
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that my Department received that information by way of a press release. To go back to the substance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, obviously it is the Government's intention to take account of the views of the Employment Select Committee, which the hon. and learned Gentleman chairs, and of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It looks as though that will now be possible, as we had always intended. We could not have known that at the outcome, but certainly that is what we have sought to achieve.
    Mrs. Currie: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that, however tempting, it may be dangerous and,
    376
    indeed, foolish to postpone economic change any longer than necessary? Is he aware that, from 1987—when the closure of the last pit in my constituency was announced —to the end of 1992, more than 11,000 new businesses were registered for VAT by the South Derbyshire VAT office, and that the unemployment rate in my constituency is 6 per cent? None of that would have been possible if we had struggled to keep that dead old pit open. Will the President of the Board of Trade take that point of view into account?
    Mr. Heseltine: I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made. There is no doubt at all that it is one of the obligations of my Department to pursue energy policies that make competitive prices available to our manufacturing base and to domestic consumers.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I press on the President of the Board of Trade the points made by my hon. Friends about the extension of the period for enhanced redundancies? Is he aware that there is a view in many of the pits that he will not extend the deadline beyond 31 March so that he can pressure miners to make a decision immediately to leave the pits? If that happened, the Government could claim that the miners had taken voluntary rather than compulsory redundancy. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that if he does not report on his review until the end of February, there will be only five weeks left until 31 March for those people to make important decisions about their future lives? Why does he not now have the confidence to say that, whatever the outcome of the review, the deadline will be extended if there are to be redundancies?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is obvious that if one is conducting a wide-ranging review into all aspects of the pit closure programme in the context of our White Paper, the issue of subsequent redundancies and the terms of them must be part of that review. The redundancy terms are available until 31 March, and I hope that we shall have a debate in the House before that date.

Redundancies (Pendle)
3.32 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing an urgent and important matter, namely,
"the 574 redundancies announced in Pendle yesterday."
Smith and Nephew is one of the largest employers in Pendle. Yesterday's decision to sack 574 people will reduce the work force by half in an area in which unemployment levels are already grotesquely high. We need to explore urgently any possible way of retrieving the position.
The matter is specific. It involves a decision of Smith and Nephew to pull out of denim manufacturing completely. That means that, when the decision is taken through, Britain will no longer be capable of producing denim cloth. That is staggering when one considers the number of fashion products that are made from denim cloth. I am not necessarily talking about imports from the far east. Forty per cent. of imports of denim cloth into the United Kingdom come from the European Community—Germany and Ireland—and from other high-cost producers such as the United States.
Why are we faced with a further contraction of the textile industry in my constituency? The issue is of national significance. The redundancies will have a devastating impact locally, but they will have an enormous impact throughout Lancashire where the textile industry is losing the critical mass to continue as an effective manufacturing industry.
The matter is of national significance because it will cost the Exchequer £5,166,000 in dole payments and social security payments to offset the cost to people who were gainfully employed. It is also of national significance because it throws into high relief the supine attitude of the Government to protect the textile industry in the GATT negotiations and their complacency to allow a vital part of the manufacturing industry to go down the pan. That is an important reason why we should have an urgent debate on the matter.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the 574 redundancies announced in Pendle yesterday."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said about the decision of Smith and Nephew to close its denim-making plant at Colne, with the loss of 574 jobs. I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: May I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker, on two issues relating to a matter which has recently come to my attention? I have notified the Members involved that I intended to raise the matter on the Floor of the House this afternoon. It has come to my attention that Sheffield city council subsidises the constituency offices of four Sheffield Members—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)—[Interruption.]—
Madam Speaker: Order. The matter which the hon. Gentleman is raising with me arises under Standing Order No. 128, which provides for complaints relating to the registration of interests. That must be considered by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Member who might be interested in such matters in the future, that such complaints should not be made to me on the Floor of the House. The subject should be raised immediately with the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take that course of action now.
Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you for pointing that out to me, Madam Speaker; I take that point on board entirely. I wish to raise another issue on which I should like your guidance. I was going to point out that the Sheffield Members are being subsidised to the tune of—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must accept my guidance.
Mr. Riddick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is it a separate point?
Mr. Riddick: It is an entirely different point, Madam Speaker. I am pointing out, so that people may know the background, that Sheffield Members are being subsidised to the tune of £55,000—
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order to raise with me, I am prepared to listen to it; but it must be directed to me.
Mr. Riddick: I should like to ask you for guidance on the propriety of Members of Parliament receiving additional public money for constituency offices.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to question 1 on the Order Paper today, tabled by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). The question refers to "the north". It became clear during his question that he was referring to the north of England, which is, of course, to the south of Scotland and largely to the south of Northern Ireland. I do not intend any criticism of the hon. Member for Hartlepool because I am sure that he used the word in shorthand, but perhaps when such questions are tabled and accepted people could look at them more closely so that they are not misleading.
Madam Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sometimes guilty of regarding myself as coming from "the north" and representing "the midlands".
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the second time this week a Conservative Member has launched a campaign against an Opposition Member. On Monday the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) without telling him that she intended to refer to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) is chairing the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and has asked me to speak on his behalf. He has been accused by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) when he cannot be here. It is a carefully chosen time. This is an orchestrated campaign. The protocol of the House is that Members should give notice that they intend to refer to other Members. This is a plot by Conservative Members.
Mr. Riddick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall hear no more on that matter. I have heard one point of order from either side, and I shall now move on.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time a Minister used abusive and unparliamentary language, and I apologise for not telling him that I intended to raise the matter. At the time, you said that you were temporarily distracted and that you were sure that the remark was made in good humour. I must draw your attention to the fact that it was certainly not regarded as good-humoured. Will you reflect upon the possibility that Members, and especially Ministers, having hurled abusive remarks, will further abuse the system and defend themselves by pretending that it was done in good humour?
Madam Speaker: I said at the time that I was distracted, as I think the House could see. From the reaction of the House, it seemed to me that the remark was taken in jest, and I hope that the matter can rest there.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask for your general guidance about a matter that I wish to refer to one of the Committees of the House? At the weekend, 14 members of the Conservative party were accused by a member of the shadow Cabinet of having their votes bought—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. If he needs such advice, he should come to see me and he will be advised correctly.

Small Aircraft (Insurance)
3.41 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require owners and operators of small aircraft to carry third-party insurance; and for connected purposes.
The measure is limited, but nevertheless is common sense and it is important, as it will fill a loophole in aviation law by requiring the operators and pilots of small and microlight aircraft to maintain minimum third-party or passenger liability insurance. That would lessen the consequences of accidents, provide security for people who live near aerodromes and have an impact on the irresponsible few who do not bother to take out third-party insurance.
During the past few years there has been a significant increase in the number of small aircraft, and of microlight aircraft in particular. The British Microlight Aircraft Association told me that it has 3,800 members with 3,500 machines and that the number is growing significantly all the time. The Civil Aviation Authority told me that it has 11,000 small aircraft on its register, 7,400 of which are relatively small and weigh less than 273 kg.
The growth of the sport is welcomed, especially in my constituency where a microlight airfield has grown up during the past year, provided that its environmental consequences can be controlled and local people can be assured that, should there be an accident, they are likely to be able to gain compensation, through insurance, from those responsible.
Under present legislation, the Civil Aviation Authority requires people who ply aircraft for hire or fly them for commercial purposes to have third-party insurance. The noble Lord Caithness recently told me that European Community licensing regulation 2407/92, which came into force in this country on 1 January, requires insurance for passengers, luggage, cargo, mail and third parties if operating licences are to be granted to people flying commercially. I also understand that gliders are required to have third party insurance. However, under present law, hobby flyers—people with small aircraft who do not ply them for hire—are not required to have any insurance for passenger liability or third parties. I believe that that should be put right.
There is no legal requirement to take out such insurance despite the fact that, according to the recent letter from Lord Caithness, section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 imposes upon pilots and fliers an absolute liability to pay compensation to people who are injured or where property is damaged on the ground as a result of their activities.
Thankfully, accidents are relatively rare. The CAA tells me that, since 1988, the average annual accident rate for aircraft weighing less than 2,301 kg, excluding microlight aircraft and helicopters, has ranged between 215 and 230. Those figures are relatively small, but, in absolute terms, they are significant. There are about 200 accidents a year involving microlight aircraft, of which between 10 and 30 are major ones and, in the past 10 years, they have caused, on average, between two and 10 fatalities a year.
In one sense, the Government recognise the problem because they have recently encouraged the CAA to distribute 10,000 copies of an updated leaflet on insurance which encourages fliers and owners to take out
"very substantial third party insurance for claims of up to £1 million or more."

381
Despite that message and the logical demand that third-party insurance should be available, as it is for cars, for all aircraft, the Government have refused to act. They have refused to act despite demands for safety and the long-running campaign by the CAA—supported by the British Microlight Aircraft Association—for such insurance to be compulsory under statute. They have refused to act despite the fact that the vast majority of non-microlight owners and fliers and two thirds of microlight fliers take out some form of third party insurance—it is not terribly expensive and costs between £80 and £200 a year.
The Government's refusal to act now is based on their argument that to introduce a compulsory, statutory system of third-party insurance would be, again according to the letter from Lord Caithness, "administratively cumbersome and expensive." I do not believe that that is right, nor do the CAA and the British Microlight Aircraft Association.
The CAA has told me that it would be easy to introduce such insurance through its existing registration system for aircraft, which is updated annually. It would be easy to make that registration conditional upon proof of third party insurance. Similarly, the British Microlight Aircraft Association, on behalf of the CAA, has to grant a certificate of validation to individual microlights every year. The chief executive of that association literally told me a few moments ago that to combine third-party insurance certificates with its annual certificates of validation would be "administratively no problem at all." That refutes the argument of Lord Caithness that such a scheme would be "administratively cumbersome and expensive."
My Bill, whose scope is limited, is a common-sense measure, which would require people to have third-party insurance, possibly even passenger liability insurance. What fliers do to themselves in the course of pursuing their hobby is up to them, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that their activities do not damagingly impinge on innocent parties who might otherwise be affected. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Simon Burns, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. David Porter, Mr. Keith Vaz, Ms. Estelle Morris, Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. Rod Richards.

Small Aircraft (Insurance)
  SMALL AIRCRAFT (INSURANCE)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to require owners and operators of small aircraft to carry third-party insurance; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed. [Bill 116].
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 January]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  Amendment proposed, [20 January], No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Articles 126 and 127 on page 32 of Cm 1934)'.
  —[Mr. Tony Lloyd.]
  Question again proposed,That the amendment be made.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that with this we are also considering the following amendments: No. 193, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 3(p)'.
  No. 199, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 57(2) on page 13 of Cm 1934'.
  No. 212, in page, 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 127(2) on page 32 of Cm 1934'.
  No. 365, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 57 as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.
  No. 52, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'but not Article 126 in Title II thereof".
  Sir Richard Body: A number of important issues arise from the articles. I hazard a guess that you, Mr. Morris, selected some of the amendments, as they were of a probing nature. A number of questions arise which have not yet been put to the Minister. He may be aware of the article that appeared on 18 September last year in the journal Education, in which Mr. Delors was quoted. Anyone reading the quotation—no doubt many of those in the teaching profession did so—would have felt apprehensive about the Commission's intentions.
  Mr. Delors clearly said that every European must—not ought to—have the same educational route. That seems to be a denial of the principle of subsidiarity. When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, it would be helpful if he would say how he interprets those words, and how the Government's representative in the Council of Ministers, will react when proposals are made by the Commission in accordance with the powers that the Commission will soon be granted under the treaty—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Minister wish to intervene?
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): No.
  The Chairman: Keep going.
  Sir Richard Body: I hope that my right hon. Friend will say a little more about what he understands the term "education of quality" means, when linked, as it is in the context of one of the articles, with culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, the larger the country or unit, the lower standards of education tend to be? It was said last night that Scotland has, for a long time, had a tradition of providing higher standards of education than England.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: But it does not have higher educational standards than Northern Ireland, which has retained its grammar schools.
  Sir Richard Body: We are treading old ground. We discussed that matter last night, and we must not go over old ground; otherwise you, Mr. Morris, will intervene—and we do not want that.
  In both contemporary and historical terms, the smaller countries have given more to the world in terms of culture than the larger ones. That has been the case in our country both historically and in contemporary times, and there are a number of other such examples around the world. If we are to have common educational and cultural policies and schemes, there is a great danger that standards will fall, because culture and education should be judged qualitatively, not quantitively. That means value judgments, which can be made with unanimity only if there is some homogeneity—and that is manifestly lacking in Europe. It may always be lacking, because the great wealth of Europe is not material so much as the rich diversity of its culture. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that point, and also assure us that he does not share the view of Mr. Delors
  Amendment No. 199 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who, as the House knows, is suffering from flu. Unfortunately, he has not been able to be here as much as we or he would have wished. The amendment relates to article 57, paragraph 2. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one vital word —"shall". The paragraph says, "the Council shall". There is to be no option, no discussion; it is a mandatory instruction to the Commission to introduce legislation under article 189 of the treaty of Rome—which, as we all know, bypasses this House.
  Yet again, we come to subsidiarity. How will my right hon. Friend or his successor judge such a serious matter in the Council of Ministers? Thousands, if not millions, of self-employed people in this country could be affected.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend again accept that paragraph 2 does not apply to everyone—there is no question of everyone being affected —but only to "natural persons"? Until we can get our right hon. Friend the Minister to explain what that means, we do not know what category or percentage of people will be covered by that paragraph.
  Sir Richard Body: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that point. I also hope that he will deal with the matter of majority voting. Millions of self-employed people will have their lives redirected because of majority voting in the Council of Ministers. That is made perfectly clear in the first half of paragraph 2.
  In the second half, after the full stop, there is a reference to unanimity. However, unanimity in a decision by the Council of Ministers appears to apply only if a member state has already introduced and passed legislation concerning the affairs of the self-employed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that point with some care. There are hundreds of self-employed people in his constituency, in mine and in all others. My constituents, like his, want to know where they stand.
  Has my right hon. Friend investigated whether there is already on the statute book legislation concerning the self-employed that would enable us to veto any legislation
  384
  proposed by the Commission under that article? The matter affects possibly millions of British people, so I hope that it has already been carefully considered by those who advise my right hon. Friend. I hope that they have the answers to my questions ready, and that they will have already briefed him on this important matter.
  If the unanimity rule applies, should not we consider at this stage whether it would be wise to introduce legislation to safeguard the interests of the self-employed in future? Unless we do that fairly promptly, we shall, as I understand it, forgo any opportunity to veto legislation by the Council of Ministers governing the lives of our self-employed constituents.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is talking about training, but we are also concerned with education, and he will be aware that article 126(4) says that changes with regard to recommendation can be produced on the basis of a qualified majority but only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. The Commission is in the driving seat. The Commission is the only—
  The Chairman: Order. I made it clear yesterday that hon. Members should ask one succinct question. The hon. Gentleman has asked that.
  4 pm
  Sir Richard Body: As always, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have learnt that that is how the Commission works. That is how great quantities of legislation are churned out. That is the result of article 189 of the treaty of Rome. Those of us who opposed it many years ago may feel that our position was justified.
  Amendment No. 212, also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, excludes article 127(2). There are important questions to be answered. That paragraph hands over to Brussels considerable activities concerning vocational training. We discussed some of the details at length last night, and I shall not repeat them. But one question above all arises, and that is that the article suggests that there should be co-operation between European countries on vocational training. That is a fine idea, which I support.
  I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is to reply. I want to ask him why on earth, all these years, we have failed to use the services offered for vocational training by the Economic Commission for Europe. As my right hon. Friend must know, it sits in Geneva and is in a position to do a great deal for Europe. When I say "Europe", I mean all Europe, not just 12 countries. The Economic Commission for Europe has around the table representatives of all 35 countries of Europe. It has the power and the mechanisms necessary to co-ordinate the activity which the Government now appear to consider desirable.
  Why have we not used the Economic Commission for Europe? If my right hon. Friend is a true European, as I am, and therefore believes that Europe consists of 35 countries, not just 12, here is an opportunity to bring round the conference table and to co-operate with countries beyond the 12. Surely among them, just as much as among ourselves—more so, indeed—there is a need for such co-operation.
  It is sad that the Foreign Office has put the brakes on the Economic Commission for Europe. If it had not been

  385
  for its antipathy, I have not the slightest doubt that the Economic Commission for Europe could do a great deal more for the benefit of Britain and for all of Europe. I hope that, in reply, my right hon. Friend will explain why we have not been able to use the services of that European institution in recent years.
  Amendment No. 365 is in the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). No doubt he will have various questions to ask if he catches your eye, Mr. Morris, but I shall ask just one.
  The amendment would enable mutual recognition of various formal qualifications. In our language, "mutual" implies the existence of two parties. Does the wording mean that, within the Community, two countries may agree to recognise each other's qualifications, or does it mean much more than that—that qualifications will be agreed throughout the Community?
  I shall not go over old ground, but it was pointed out last night that in some countries professional qualifications are of a lower standard. I hope that no lowering of standards will result. May we have an assurance about that and may we also be assured that, under the article—it is not a bad article, in my opinion—mutual recognition in the ordinary sense of the word will be possible? Many people in this country believe that we have much in common with certain other countries in regard to professional qualifications: I am thinking especially of Germany, Denmark and, of course, Ireland.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Article 57 states:
  "In the case of the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the progressive abolition of restrictions shall be dependent upon co-ordination of the conditions for their exercise in the various Member States."
  Is it not interesting that, in matters of life and death, the absurd nonesense of trying to homogenise all the rules and regulations remains at the discretion of nation states? Should not that guiding rule apply to all recognitions of qualifications?
  Sir Richard Body: As ever, I agree with my hon. Friend. I only hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will agree as well; he is not quite a lost cause, but I am not over-optimistic about my chances of persuading him.
  Amendment No. 52 also raises a number of questions. The phrase "quality education", for instance, seems to limit the concept of education. Why is that? Are we embarking on another value judgment, and is that judgment to be made in Brussels or elsewhere? Have we completely forgotten about the principle of subsidiarity? In the treaty, we ask Brussels to support my right hon. Friend in matters of education. What kind of support does he seek?
  The article also contains the word "supplementary". What supplement is needed? Are we conceding to the Opposition Front Bench that much is lacking in the provisions for educational and vocational training? I hope that we shall be given a clear explanation of the meaning of the word, and of why it is used.
  The article provides for an exchange of information. The Economic Commission for Europe already performs that function, and is willing to expand it in respect of 35 European countries. Why is such duplication necessary? The treaty uses the phrase "European dimension". Does it
  386
  mean Europe in the true sense of all 35 countries, or does it mean only the 12? Surely we are missing an opportunity—the Economic Commission for Europe has the resources, facilities, expertise, mechanisms and committees already established but we are failing to use them. It is a criticism of the Government that they have failed to support the Economic Commission for Europe because, I fear, they are so besotted with what happens in Brussels.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend kindly referred to an amendment which I hope to move and to speak to shortly. Does he agree that the basic point, which I hope to illustrate, is that the words "quality of education" mean exactly what the Commission decides? In other words, it can introduce any directives as long as it believes that they refer to the quality of education. Basically, it can do what it likes, and it is a waste of time looking for a definition, because there is not one.
  Sir Richard Body: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. As lawyers say, obiter dicta. Mr. Jacques Delors, whom I admire because he is frank and honest—unlike some others—has said that all Europeans must follow the same educational route, which is why I am suspicious of the fact that we are handing powers to Brussels. We may have better education as a result, but I would rather that we had our own education system and powers to decide our own practices. I fear that we are on the way to giving away that ability.
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman's comments on Mr. Delors will be echoed by many of my colleagues. Mr. Delors makes it perfectly clear what he, as President of the Commission, wants to do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) should also be congratulated on making it clear that he wants a federal Europe, and that it is the pro-Maastricht people who are not so frank, especially those among the Tory Members, who should be condemned?
  Sir Richard Body: The hon. Gentleman's last word is a strong one, and I would not wish to echo it. However, I too congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) on having spoken frankly in recent weeks. I can remember speeches that he made decades ago, when he spoke differently about what he saw for the future of Europe. We are not to know whether his views have changed in the intervening years, but I am glad that he is now frank about what he wants, and what I fear various hon. Members also want but which they are unwilling to state frankly to the British people.
  I feel strongly about that. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may know that I was once a federalist—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying and being repetitive. I should be grateful if he would restrict his remarks specifically to the issues with which he was dealing.
  Sir Richard Body: Of course I shall, Mr. Morris.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond to my final point. The regional fund has been increased as a result of the Edinburgh summit from £10,000 million to £16,000 million, and it seems that this country will be eligible for an appreciable sum of money from that fund. We said last night that some of the

  387
  proposals will be costly. Money must be found from somewhere, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether we shall be able to tap in to some of the regional fund.
  It is not a matter for pride that we are now proving eligible for regional fund money. Northern Ireland has received it in recent years, but when the regional fund was established, not only were we major contributors but no one at that time believed that our standard of living would fall so much that we should be entitled to make a claim.
  Under objective 1, concerning the budget, regional fund money may be available if average earnings in an area are 75 per cent. of the Community average. Northern Ireland, at 76 per cent., is almost in that position, and it is disturbing to read that, in the highlands and islands, the figure has fallen from 98 per cent. to 78 per cent. I understand that the Commissioner for regional policy, Mr. Bruce Millian, whom we remember as a Member of the House, is holding a meeting today to find out whether the 75 per cent. ruling could be made more flexible.
  4.15 pm
  That is of some importance to this country, because many areas in the United Kingdom are drawing close to the 75 per cent. It may be a matter for some shame that our standard of living, and our average earnings, should be falling. Those areas of the United Kingdom include my constituency, because many hundreds of my constituents work in the gangs. They do casual work on the land, and many earn only £2 an hour, so manifestly they are earning 75 per cent. of the Community average. That is a matter for concern to my constituents, so I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will give us a clear answer. If those figures for our average earnings are right, we shall be eligible for an appreciable slice of the £16 billion in the regional fund.
  I submit to my right hon. Friend that vocational training should fall within that branch of the budget. It would equip many people to get jobs or to earn more, so would it not be appropriate for that part of the Community budget in the article to come under the regional fund? If so, does my right hon. Friend envisage areas of the United Kingdom becoming eligible, and will he say how he thinks we would spend that money? Would all schemes have to be approved by Brussels, or could we have some subsidiarity and tailor our schemes to our own needs?
  I have put rather a long list of questions to my right hon. Friend, but they are important questions, because we shall not have many opportunities to debate this part of the treaty. I have studied it closely this morning, and I am horrified by the extent to which the Commission will attract to itself powers which the House will lose. The Government may not altogether lose those powers, because they will still be a member of the Council of Ministers, but the House will lose a great deal as a result of the two articles.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the assurances that we have sought, and will answer my questions.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: In one sense it is an unqualified pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), because to do so means by definition that his speech must have come to an end. You recently uttered an amazing phrase,
  388
  Mr. Morris—although I do not know whether it will find its way into the Official Report. When the Minister was talking to another of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Holland with Boston thought that his right hon. Friend was intervening in his speech, and you advised the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to "keep going". That was a brave thing to say, Mr. Morris, and I shall be interested to see whether it is duly recorded.
  My remarks refer not so much to what the hon. Member for Holland with Boston said this afternoon, as to his speech last night. That substantial contribution reminded me of the boy who was sent to church on Sunday on his own. He came back a long time later, and his parents asked him, "What did the Minister talk about in his sermon?" The boy replied, "Well, daddy, he talked about sin." The boy's parents said, "You were away a long time, son. What did the minister say about sin?", to which the boy replied, "I think he's against it."
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the amendment. I think that he is against the group of original provisions, but I do not know that we got much further than that. He said that this was his first contribution since the general election last April. I am sure that, their appetites having been whetted, the House of Commons and the country are looking forward to many more contributions from him during the passage of this Bill, as we deal with the entire ratification process.
  Last night the hon. Gentleman said that he did not consider it at all appropriate for the Community to concentrate on vocational training and to do so to an even greater extent. Leaving Maastricht aside, I regard that as an astonishing observation. A number of years ago Parliament legislated for something called the single European market, with all that that implies. Is itnot a logical consequence of the single market that we must think about education and training, too, so that we may be as competitive as possible right across an integrated economy? It seems to me that that is a logical corollary of the Single European Act—never mind the signposts that the Maastricht treaty contains. I suppose, therefore, that I have a fundamental disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. I respect the position that he takes, but I cannot see eye to eye with him.
  Sir Richard Body: Does the hon. Gentleman go as far as Jacques Delors, who, according to words that I quoted earlier, believes that every European must go along the same education route? It will be interesting to hear the Liberal party's view on that matter.
  Mr. Kennedy: I have said that I regard myself as a good European. In so far as M. Delors was indicating that it makes sense for educational developments in one member state to take account of what is happening in other member states and to provide for a degree of integration—for reasons with which I shall deal later—he was talking extremely good sense. If the whole idea is that the European Community should become an economic engine capable of competing effectively, on a global basis, with the Pacific basin and with the single market that is being put together in north America, it makes sense to go in that direction.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) by reminding him that article 126 states specifically that the Community must fully respect the responsibility of

  389
  member states for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. In addition, it specifically rules out any harmonisation measures.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, to which I should like to add a postscript.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Surely quotations from the treaty should be accurate. The Minister has said that article 126 contains the word "must". In fact, it does not.
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Order. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Kennedy: I can see that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is exercised about this matter. I expect that if the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Morris, he may want to deal directly with it—presumably to his hon. Friend's satisfaction, as the Opposition have observed is customary on these occasions.
  On the basic point of principle, there has been a fair degree of paranoia and xenophobia—hysteria, indeed, though carefully controlled. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made an impassioned speech, but I noticed, with professional respect, that his passion was well channelled. His attack was carried in "Yesterday in Parliament" this morning, so his views were communicated with some effect to the outside world.
  What came through in the debate on culture and is now coming through in the debate on education is a degree of not only hostility, but downright paranoia about openness to other member states in the Community. I find that attitude especially perplexing in Conservatives and in Unionists. In the United Kingdom Parliament, whatever arguments we may have about constitutional reform within the United Kingdom, nobody can say that as a result of not only a common currency, but a common language and a common legal system—albeit with different traditions in different parts of the United Kingdom—the English, the Scottish and the Welsh have become indivisible and unrecognisable one from the other. We all know that that is not the case.
  Why are Unionists, in the United Kingdom sense, of all people so worried about losing their sense of individualism and national character in the European Community? The Community is nowhere near as centralised or homogeneous as the set-up in the United Kingdom. I find that worry perplexing.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I will not because I want to make progress. We have listened to an immensely long speech and I do not intend to detain the House. Others wish to speak and there are other issues that we want to discuss this evening—the sooner the better.
  It is encouraging to see greater emphasis being placed on vocational study as well as on non-vocational study. We very much support that. If we want an effective and well-resourced expansion of further and higher education, the emphasis being given to education at Community level
  390
  acts as a good signpost for the United Kingdom. Some will say that the policy will cost money, which is a fair criticism to make when Opposition parties propose it.
  I remind hon. Members that during the election, the Liberal Democratic party laid special emphasis on educational policy. We went further and said that we believed that the basic rate of income tax should increase by 1 per cent. to fund it. That was an example of the seriousness with which we approach—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) does not seem to be terribly interested in listening to different viewpoints. He seems to display the lack of tolerance that he ascribes to every European country apart from our own.
  The emphasis that the Liberal Democrats placed during the election on education in this country is an emphasis that we want to see at European level, too. That is why the provisions on education are so important and why we give them our support in this debate.
  We want the provisions to go further, not least for tertiary education. In some ways Scotland has been more continental and more international in its outlook, not least in education. Scotland has looked to the continent of Europe. Scots are proud of that outlook, which has served us well. We now want to take the opportunity of the single market and of greater integration at European level to build on that outlook for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Schemes such as the Euro-credit transfer scheme, whereby Europewide credits can be obtained in universities across the Community, could contribute to a more flexible degree programme. I like to think that in years to come, more students will not only think of universities within the United Kingdom where they can pursue their educational endeavours, but will look automatically to other member states as well. That will broaden education and will become the norm rather than the exception, as it is at the moment.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: To which amendment is the hon. Gentleman addressing himself? I inquire so that I may relate his speech to the text and to the amendment.
  Mr. Kennedy: I note that the hon. Gentlman did not raise that question during the two hours of verbiage that we heard last night. I am addressing in the main the group of amendments currently under debate, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The amendments give rise to a variety of different, interlinked educational and training issues. That is perfectly legitimate.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he hopes that in future young people in this country, students and potential students, will look to a whole range of universities, not just within the United Kingdom. I endorse the view that he has expressed. I entirely agree with him. But would he not accept that a very large number of people from Europe and elsewhere in the world currently look to United Kingdom universities for their higher education and that this sector of education has a high reputation not just in Europe but throughout the world?
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Kennedy: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman looks in the record of the debate tomorrow, he will find that I made that point just about two minutes before I went on to make the point about the future. No one is decrying educational

  391
  attainments and standards in this country. One is proud to say that in many cases we have centres of world excellence and we want to maintain and extend that. What I wish to add—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me on this point—is that this very excellence can be sustained and built on by those would-be graduates and graduates going through the system at present, gaining from their international experience, coming back to the centres in this country and enriching them as a result. That is something that we want to sec developed and built on and it is something which this aspect of the treaty can help emphasise and give an impetus to. That must be a good thing.
  The debate that we had yesterday on the importance of culture—the diversity of culture and the bringing forward of European culture in general—together with the emphasis in this section on education and training, is worth while. It bodes well for better understanding and greater harmony—harmony not in the technical sense of harmonisation, but in its proper meaning of understanding and comprehension between individual countries and between Europe and other parts of the world. It is something that, in principle, Liberal Democrat Members very much support. It is one aspect of the treaty that deserves a positive response, not the negative and at times xenophobic response that it has received from some hon. Members on the Government Benches, and we are happy to support it.
  Mr. Marlow rose in his place and claimed to have, That the Question be now put, but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Thank you very much, Mr. Morris.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: If I may be allowed just to enter upon my speech, I think that it will be of help to the Committee.
  I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) for opening the debate and for indicating to the Committee that amendment No. 6 is a probing amendment, the purpose of which has been to offer the Committee the opportunity to discuss the educational and vocational training aspects of the treaty. I shall try to respond to the invitation that the hon. Gentleman issued in opening the debate.
  I shall also, as I proceed, seek to respond to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in his intervention last night, but I hope that he will forgive me—and I am sure that the Committee will—if I make a distinction in responding to amendments moved as probing amendments, to provide us with the opportunity for debate, and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). You have guided us, Mr. Morris, with the help of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in making it absolutely clear that no amendment selected by you is a wrecking amendment, and I accept that; but the amendments that my hon. Friends have moved and intend to press, if given the opportunity—and the Committee needs to be clear about this in other important debates that we are to move on to—would make the United Kingdom a non-ratificant country.
  I know that it is offensive to many of my hon. Friends, but a consensus has now emerged in Britain about our
  392
  membership of the Community. That does not mean that the Conservative Members agree with Opposition Members. Indeed, we are shortly to have a debate, in which our disagreements will be very sharp, about how we wish to use that Community, to shape that Community and to make our contribution to it. It is that consensus—that overwhelming consensus—which now exists in the House for our membership of the Community that I am seeking to address.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I will not give way just for a moment.
  My hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not address every point that they have made in the detail that they would wish, because I understand, and the Committee understands, that their purpose is not the purpose of the Committee. Their purpose is to make the ratification of the treaty impossible. Let me give just one example.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Southend, East have made great play about the term "natural person". The Committee will understand that that is a matter of very great consequence. The term "natural person" is in the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. Its meaning is perfectly clear. It seeks to make a distinction between a person, people and institutions or companies. I do not intend to detain the Committee by making copious reference to every point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), because their purpose is well known to the Committee.
  Mr. Marlow: I will admit to my right hon. Friend that I do not want to see the treaty ratified, but I do not wish to leave the Community. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would agree with me. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would not misrepresent us.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think—the record will so reflect tomorrow—that I was presumptuous enough to say what are the ambitions of each and every one of my hon. Friends and, indeed, Opposition Members so far as Britain's future in the Community is concerned. That is not for me to say. I simply make the point that there is a difference, it seems to me, between those who wish to ratify the treaty and those who do not. It is courteous of me to address the overwhelming majority in the Committee who wish to debate these matters in a ratificant mode.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for the courtesy that he is showing in his response to the debate. Several times he has referred to the overwhelming consensus in the Committee supporting the—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Put it to the test.
  Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman please give me time?
  Although my right hon. Friend assumes that the Committee overwhelmingly backs the ratification of Maastricht, does he accept that one of the vital constitutional purpose of the House of Commons of Westminster is to represent the interests of the people of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore perhaps be more understanding of the role of those Conservative Members whom he describes as Euro-sceptics? We are doing precisely that. We should be only too happy if my right

  393
  hon. Friend were to say, "We are prepared to give the people of this country, not just the House of Commons, an opportunity to express their views on the Maastricht treaty."
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted down that route. There are later amendments on that topic.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I have already said, Mr. Morris, as you have reminded the House, that there are amendments on a referendum, and I look forward with considerable relish to dealing with them with the hon. Member for Macclesfield. So far as Euro-scepticism is concerned, I do not describe the hon. Member as a Euro-sceptic. To the extent that I would give him a description, it would be "Euro-nihilist". I regard myself and every right-thinking person in Britain as sceptical about the Community, as we should be sceptical about the Community. We should also be sceptical about Whitehall, the Government and any institution that is funded by the taxpayer. It is our duty to—
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wonder whether you could clear up a matter for me. I shall be brief. My right hon. Friend said that he is prepared to address the arguments of those who are in favour of the treaty, but that he is not prepared to address the arguments of those who do not want to see the treaty ratified. Is that a proper process?
  The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I will now make some progress in my speech.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: May I simply respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I think that the Committee will thank me for this. I do not think it is possible to respond in detail to every point made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall say why not in a moment, if I am allowed to make some progress. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who made a lengthy speech yesterday, I am not under written instructions from anybody about how long I should take with my speech. I shall make my speech in my own time, and I shall respond to those points that I believe are worthy of response.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I will not give way for a moment. As the Committee will be aware, co-operation on education between the member states of the European Community and the Commission is nothing new. In 1976, the member states agreed to a programme of intergovernmental co-operation in education outside the scope of the treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In the past few minutes, my right hon. Friend said that our purpose is to debate the question whether to ratify the treaty. Does that mean—
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman raises a point of order, it must be something on which I can rule. I cannot rule on the content of speeches from any hon. Members unless they are out of order. So far, nothing has been out of order. What exactly is the point on which I am to rule?
  Mr. Knapman: Does that mean that the House has any opportunity to amend the treaty? If what my right hon. Friend is saying is correct, we are not here to amend the treaty; we are here for a canter around the course.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have many days ahead of us. If he uses a little ingenuity, he may find that further amendments are possible, but I cannot decide that until he puts them in writing.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The co-operation has comprised non-binding resolutions, exchanges of information and experience and pilot studies. One outcome has been the establishment of a working group to exchange ideas about teaching the European dimension in schools. The most recent fruit has been the establishment of a small programme of school partnerships. Schools throughout the Community have been brought together to pursue projects. Twenty-three British schools are involved. I am sure that the pupils in those schools will receive an invaluable insight into Europe.
  In addition to such intergovernmental co-operation, the Community's education programmes, ERASMUS, LINGUA and COMETT, have been adopted under articles 128 and 235 of the treaty. They have produced substantial benefits for universities in the United Kingdom. COMETT has helped United Kingdom universities to link up with industry across Europe, LINGUA has assisted with the teaching of foreign languages and ERASMUS has enabled more than 25,000 United Kingdom students to spend part of their time at university studying abroad. The Committee will be pleased to know that the United Kingdom is a leading—often the leading—participant in all of those programmes.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Not yet.
  At Maastricht, it was accepted that amending the treaty of Rome to insert an education article was the logical next step in building on the co-operation. This treaty will put the co-operation between member states on a firm footing. It will clearly distinguish between those areas in which the Community can assist the member states and those in which it should not be involved. That is an important development, because the potential scope of the existing article 128 on training is both unclear and unlimited and has given good grounds for considerable anxiety on both sides of the House.
  I want to clear up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East made. The treaty article explicitly enshrines the principle of subsidiarity in education. My hon. Friend was right to jump up, because it might not have been clear to Hansard exactly at which point the quotation marks come in. The quotation marks come in after the word "fully". Article 126 mentions the Community

  395
  "fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity."
  In addition, any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states is expressly ruled out. There is thus no possibility of Community interference in, for example, the national curriculum.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Not for the moment.
  The Community will be limited to adopting incentive measures—
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: When I have made my point, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
  The Community will be limited to adopting incentive measures, such as the exchange and co-operation programmes already adopted, and making non-binding recommendations. The treaty envisages Community activity in matters with a genuine transnational character: for example, teaching the languages of the member states, exchanges of information and experience, distance education, and so on. The enthusiasm of our schools and universities to become involved in European projects and programmes is ample evidence of the benefits that they see in European co-operation. With the boost of article 126, they are set to benefit even more.
  Mr. Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am about to finish my point and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  As I have already said in passing, Community activity in training is well established. The existing article 128 provides for the Community to lay down general principles for implementing a common vocational training policy.
  The new treaty provision constitutes an improvement for two main reasons; this is a point of which I am anxious for the Committee to be aware. First, the voting base is changed from simple majority to qualified majority voting. That is an improvement on the position under the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. It will increase the control of member states over Council decisions and will allow member states to wield much greater influence over the control of the training budget. Secondly, the new treaty text states that the Council
  "shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States."
  As for the new education article, the treaty specifically rules out any attempt by the Community to impose on member states training strategy common elements that take no account of their diversity. That is a welcome change. It respects subsidiarity and is a substantial improvement for member states over the position that pertained under the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act.
  Mr. Shepherd: My question for information arises out of an earlier comment in which my right hon. Friend outlined the ways in which the Community attempts to influence education policy in the Community. My right hon. Friend may recall that, at a conference in Madrid recently, Dr. Lenarduzzi argued that there was no authority under the treaty of Rome for such excursions. If
  396
  that is right, what is the authority by which the member states are expending money to influence educational projects?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: In a sense, that is my point. I did not have the pleasure of attending the conference in Madrid with my hon. Friend. One of the anxieties that we have felt is that the Commission has sought to insert itself into education through the training article in an inappropriate way. There are some areas in which we want the Commission to insert itself. However, we believed that it was right to define and limit what the Community could and could not do.
  If my hon. Friend read the five or six tirets in paragraph 2 of article 126, he would find that most of our fellow citizens would prefer to promote co-operation between educational establishments. In the United Kingdom, 25,000 schoolchildren already benefit from such programmes. So these are worthy programmes which supplement and complement what we are doing in the United Kingdom. That is why it is important to make the distinction between the overwhelming majority of the Committee, who are in favour of the treaty, and the small but perfectly honourable and respected minority who see a phantom in every line and a ghost in every article. That view is not shared by any political party in the House; nor is it shared by the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: This was a probing amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Lloyd rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 483, Noes 58.

  Division No. 117]

  [4.50 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Adley, Robert

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainger, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Alexander, Richard

  Betts, Clive

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Allen, Graham

  Blair, Tony

  Alton, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Boyes, Roland

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Baldry, Tony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Battle, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burns, Simon

  Beckett, Margaret

  Burt, Alistair

  397

  Butler, Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butterfill, John

  Evennett, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Faber, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Flynn, Paul

  Chapman, Sydney

  Forman, Nigel

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Clapham, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Clappison, James

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Clelland, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Freeman, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  French, Douglas

  Coe, Sebastian

  Fyfe, Maria

  Colvin, Michael

  Galbraith, Sam

  Congdon, David

  Gale, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Conway, Derek

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Garnier, Edward

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Garrett, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Corbett, Robin

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Cormack, Patrick

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Couchman, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cousins, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cox, Tom

  Gorst, John

  Cummings, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Dafis, Cynog

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gunnell, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Hague, William

  Davidson, Ian

  Hall, Mike

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hanson, David

  Day, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Denham, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Devlin, Tim

  Harris, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Dicks, Terry

  Hayes, Jerry

  Dixon, Don

  Heald, Oliver

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hendry, Charles

  Dover, Den

  Heppell, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Hicks, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hinchliffe, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Hoey, Kate

  Eggar, Tim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Elletson, Harold

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Horam, John

  Enright, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  398

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Maxton, John

  Hutton, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Illsley, Eric

  Meacher, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Jack, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Michael, Alun

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Milburn, Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Janner, Greville

  Milligan, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Mills, Iain

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Moss, Malcolm

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Key, Robert

  Murphy, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Needham, Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Nelson, Anthony

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Norris, Steve

  Knox, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Olner, William

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Leigh, Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Page, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Paice, James

  Lightbown, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Luff, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Pickles, Eric

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Pickthall, Colin

  McAllion, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pope, Greg

  McCartney, Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  McGrady, Eddie

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Prescott, John

  McKelvey, William

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Maclean, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McLeish, Henry

  Radice, Giles

  Maclennan, Robert

  Randall, Stuart

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rathbone, Tim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Raynsford, Nick

  Madel, David

  Redwood, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Reid, Dr John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Richards, Rod

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Riddick, Graham

  Mallon, Seamus

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Malone, Gerald

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mandelson, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mans, Keith

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Marek, Dr John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Marland, Paul

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  399

  Rogers, Allan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomason, Roy

  Rooney, Terry

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sackville, Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Trend, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Turner, Dennis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tyler, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wallace, James

  Shersby, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Short, Clare

  Ward, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watson, Mike

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Snape, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Welsh, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilson, Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stephen, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, Jimmy

  Straw, Jack

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sumberg, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sykes, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Jessel, Toby

  Beggs, Roy

  Knapman, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Legg, Barry

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Lewis, Terry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Litherland, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Livingstone, Ken

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Lord, Michael

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Canavan, Dennis

  McCrea, Rev William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Madden, Max

  Carttiss, Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Cash, William

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cohen, Harry

  Pawsey, James

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Cran, James

  Redmond, Martin

  Cryer, Bob

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Galloway, George

  Simpson, Alan

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gill, Christopher

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  400

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Trimble, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Tony Marlow.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 292.

  Division No. 118]

  [5.07 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  McCrea, Rev William

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Madden, Max

  Barnes, Harry

  Mahon, Alice

  Beggs, Roy

  Marlow, Tony

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Pawsey, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Redmond, Martin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cran, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fry, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Galloway, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Trimble, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Jessel, Toby

  Wise, Audrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Wray, Jimmy

  Lewis, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Loyden, Eddie

  Mr. Harry Cohen.

  McAllion, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowis, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bright, Graham

  Alton, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ancram, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Burns, Simon

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burt, Alistair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butler, Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bates, Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Clappison, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coe, Sebastian

  Booth, Hartley

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Congdon, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  401

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Elletson, Harold

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Faber, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McGrady, Eddie

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Mallon, Seamus

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hague, William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  402

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Sykes, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Redwood, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Richards, Rod

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Thomason, Roy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Salmond, Alex

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wallace, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  Watts, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilshire, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Andrew Mackay and

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(except Article 123 on page 31 of Cm 1934)'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 127, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(excluding Article G D(10) on page 12 of Cm 1934).-'.
  No. 129, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  '(excluding Article G D(12) on page 13 of Cm 1934).'.
  No. 186, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
  'except Article 3(i) on page 9 of Cm 1934'.
  No. 58, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  'but not the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
  No. 27, in page 1, line 13, after 'Community', insert
  ', with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy'.
  Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No. 7 is a probing amendment which we intend ultimately to withdraw.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I shall not give way as I have just begun to speak.
  I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 27 on which, in due course, we shall press the Committee to a vote. Amendment No. 27 states:
  "Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after 'Community', insert ', with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy'.
  I shall address my remarks to that protocol and the importance to the Labour party of the social chapter.

  403
  The Bill keeps the United Kingdom outside the scope of the protocol on social policy, so excluding the United Kingdom from the social chapter. It prevents the people of the United Kingdom from being part of the full social dimension of the European Community. The Bill excludes Britain from provisions which our 11 partners have agreed to facilitate greater protection for employed people in their working conditions, better rights of consultation and information, equality of treatment and opportunity for men and women, and the integration into the labour force of long-term unemployed people, including disabled workers. Those benefits will flow to the citizens of the 11 other members of the Community, but will be denied to the people of our country by the actions of the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and particularly grateful—as is the Committee—that he has said that amendment No. 7 is a probing one.
  Will he give the Committee and those of his hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway the benefit of his view on one issue? He said that the Labour party will press amendment No. 27 to a Division if it is called. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the terms of the amendment, United Kingdom law would not conform to the treaty's provisions, so it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends.
  We have just seen on the closure motion—thanks to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd)—the majority that exists in the Committee in favour of ratification. Will the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) explain to his hon. Friends and other interested hon. Members why the Labour party intends to press amendment No. 27 to a vote?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can simply and willingly explain that to the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I would not move the amendment on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and my other hon. Friends if we did not fully understand its implications. Those implications would be to remove the protocol on social policy, which refers to the exclusion of the social chapter from the treaty. That would require Her Majesty's Government to negotiate with the other 11 Community members.
  The solution to the problem would be for an agreement to emerge that folded the social chapter into the treaty, thus benefiting Britain and the British people, as well as the other 11 Community members. Of course I recognise that that would present Her Mjesty's Government with a dilemma, but we have taken the precaution to check that the other 11 member states would be happy for that outcome to obtain.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman admits that there is what he refers to as a problem. Will he confirm that that problem—as he describes it—is that the United Kingdom is not in a position to ratify the treaty? Furthermore, will he give the Committee the information that he says he has on the views of other member states?
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with that intervention, any more than I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's first intervention. The problem is one for Her Majesty's
  404
  Government, and there is a simple solution to it. The solution would be to include the social chapter in the treaty and approve it and for the citizens of our country to receive all the manifest benefits which flow from the social chapter and which will be enjoyed by the citizens of the other 11 member states.
  While we are on the subject, Her Majesty's Government alone—the British Conservative party alone of political parties in the Community—have decided to exclude the social chapter and its benefits from application in the United Kingdom. No other party, in or or out of Government, in the European Community supports the position of Her Majesty's Government. No applicant Government for membership of the European Community supports the position of Her Majesty's Government. The European employers organisation does not support the position of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, the isolation of the British Conservative Government in Europe on the issue is absolute. They should regard that not as a badge of honour but as a badge of shame against Britain.
  Mr. Marlow: I merely make an innocent observation. My right hon. Friend is trying to put the wind up and the frighteners on the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but I can tell the hon. Member for Copeland that if there is anything that I dislike more than the Maastricht treaty, it is the social contract.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not absolutely fazed by that intervention. Perhaps I should apologise to the Minister and the Committee for a slight error earlier. There is one other political party in Europe that supports the position of the British Conservatives: Mr. Jean-Marie Le Pen and the French neo-facist party. I hope that the Government feel comfortable in his company.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I promise that I shall not intervene further. I shall comment later on the supposed merits of the matter. However, the question remains and the hon. Gentleman must answer it—does the amendment place the British Government in the position of being a non-ratificant? One thing that we wear as a badge of honour is the support of the British people. We obtained the support of the British people, not least because of the exclusion from the provisions of the social protocol which we obtained for Britain. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that, when we next face the British people, they do not promise to import that pernicious protocol into our law.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. Cunningham: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not asking me to apologise for placing the Government in a predicament. I thought that that was one of the principal roles and duties of the Opposition. Of course, the Government will be placed in a predicament—that is exactly our intention. However, we are also offering a clear and unambiguous way out—which is to embrace the social chapter, as every other Government in the European Community have done. That is the purpose of our amendment—a wholly beneficial purpose—which is well intentioned and motivated. It has overwhelming support throughout the European Community and we make no apology for it.

  405
  Article 2, paragraph 6, of the social chapter states:
  "The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs."
  Article 3, which provides for agreements to be made between management and labour at the Community level, was promoted by the joint initiative from the employers' organisation UNICE and the European Trades Union Congress. There is no question of such agreements superseding the Commission, the Council of Ministers or member Governments by altering trade union or strike laws.
  I have said all that to remove another canard from the Government's argument: that, somehow, if the social chapter were adopted and applied in Britain, it would set back the clock and reverse the decisions of the House on industrial legislation and wage bargaining. That is a wholly false argument, and it always has been.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman assured the House that he had the approval of all the other member Governments for the approach that he has adopted on behalf of the Opposition. As that would be a gross interference in domestic politics, which is outside Community regulations, can he explain in detail exactly what he meant?
  Dr. Cunningham: As the hon. Gentleman is usually critical of the Labour party for not being sufficiently pro-European, I regard his intervention as pathetic. First, he clearly was not listening to what I said, so he misrepresented my remarks. Secondly, we are confident that other member Governments would be happy to renegotiate the matter to include the social chapter in the treaty. I stand by those remarks.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
  From the outset, it has been the purpose of the Conservative party and the Government to erect a bogus case, to pretend to slaughter a paper tiger, to perpetrate a squalid fraud on the British people and to promote the Prime Minister as some sort of pathetic hero tilting at the windmills of the distressed minds in his own party on social and employment policy issues. It has been a charade—a squalid fraud—to cover the real impact of the provisions of the social chapter.
  I shall revert for a few moments to the social charter, which expresses fundamental principles relating to 12 major themes. They are: free movement of workers based on the principles of equal treatment in access to employment and social protection; employment and pay to be based on the principle of fair remuneration; improved living and working conditions; social protection based on the rules and practices proper to each country; freedom of association in collective bargaining; vocational training; equal treatment for men and women; information, consultation and participation of workers; protection on health and safety in the workplace; protection of children and adolescents; the guarantee of minimum living standards for elderly people; and improved social and professional integration for disabled people. Those are the 12 main objectives of the social charter.
  406
  Of course, the charter itself has no force in law, but it provided the initial political impetus for an action programme of specific measures which was drawn up by the European Commission and which was before the Council at its Strasbourg meeting. The social chapter was based on the provisions of the social charter.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the treaty, as it now stands, not only discriminates against workers in this country, but formalises the discrimination shown within the European Community to immigrant workers? In terms of the free mobility of workers and their families, there are two classes of people—the citizens of Europe and the immigrant workers and their families. That discrimination is formalised in the treaty.
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I have already given way four or five times, so the hon. Gentleman can hardly complain if I do not give way now.
  Just as they declined to support the social charter, the Government refused to agree to a chapter on social policy being included in the body of the treaty on European union and European economic and monetary union agreed by the European Council in Maastricht in December 1991. The purpose of our amendment is to reverse that decision.
  What was said at that time was set out in the protocol, which made Britain's position clear. It stated:
  "The United Kingdom … shall not take part in the deliberations and the adoption by the Council of Commission proposals made on the basis of this Protocol and the abovementioned Agreement … Acts adopted by the Council and any financial consequences other than the administrative costs entailed for the institutions shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom".
  In other words, although Britain is opting out and denying the benefits of the chapter to our people, we are still expected to pay our share of the costs of European Community activities.
  Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between him and many other members of the Committee is that we believe that matters of vital concern to all the people of this country are properly and naturally the concern of the House and the country? They should not be imposed on us by the European Community through the social chapter. Is he further aware that if he manages, by chance, to get the social chapter included in the treaty, he will undoubtedly find that there will be no majority among Conservative Members to ratify the treaty, with the result that the whole treaty will be lost?
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree with little, or even none, of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I would be more persuaded of the force of his argument if there was some evidence on the Conservative Benches of a liberal approach to social and employment policies. I do not regard the abolition of the wages councils, which provide protection for the poorest and lowest-paid people in our communities, as liberal social and employment policies. Therefore, I do not agree with that part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I certainly do not agree with the second part, in which he suggested that somehow decisions on such matters would be taken away from the jurisdiction of this House. If it is

  407
  so important to have a level playing field under the Single European Act for business, industry and commercial development, why is it so wrong to have a level playing field in social and employment policies?
  The agreement appended to the protocol states, among other things:
  "the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields:
  —improvement in particular of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety;
  —working conditions;
  —the information and consultation of workers;
  —equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work;
  —the integration of persons excluded from the labour market".
  It continued:
  "To this end, the Council may adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation, having regard to the conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States."
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: May I pursue the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)? The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that he understood that the other 11 countries were happy to renegotiate with regard to the social chapter. But does he have information that the other 11 countries are prepared to restart their entire ratification processes and, in the case of Ireland and France, to hold new referendums to accommodate the hon. Gentleman?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what is going on. The other 11 countries have already accepted the social chapter. They do not need to reopen their ratification processes. If he does not understand that, he does not understand much about what has been going on in the past few months in the rest of the Community.
  The agreement refers in particular to the need to take measures to promote equal opportunities and to the role that trade union and employers' organisations can play in reaching agreements that help to give effect to the aims of the social chapter.
  Finally, on the EC-wide aspects of the matter, the social policy was on the agenda at the Edinburgh summit at the conclusion of the British presidency. We just need to remind the House and our fellow citizens what was decided there. Part A, annex 2, of the conclusions of the Edinburgh summit says:
  "Turning to social policy, the Commission considers that the group of directives based on article 118 of the treaty is too recent to warrant re-examination."
  There are no prizes for guessing which member state was asking for re-examination. It goes on:
  "Furthermore, instead of re-examination its priority will be to supplement them by implementing all the provisions of the chapter of the fundamental social rights of workers."
  That is the most recent view of our Community partners on this nexus of issues.
  The Labour party agrees with our European partners that the primary source of Community strength, the single most important element in our wealth creation, is people—the working men and women of Europe. That is why we see the social chapter as an integral part of the Maastricht treaty. That is why the development of common basic standards for people at work is central to our vision of a future Europe.
  As I have already pointed out, we do not want Europe simply to be a marketplace; it must be a developing
  408
  community. Progress is not just about economic and industrial development; it is about associated social and employment policy developments, too, and social justice. A civilised society is measured not just by its wealth but by the treatment of its citizens.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly that Europe is more than just an economic unit. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the noises that we hear from the Conservative Benches on the narrow economic and market issues are usually noises in favour of a level playing field, yet in this one instance Conservative Members are trying to get preferential treatment at the expense of ordinary working people?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted to be able to agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  For people throughout the Community, the social chapter offers the prospect of a platform of basic rights—the right to decent working conditions, the right to be consulted about changes that affect them and the right to protection against bad employers. It places individual employees on a par with their employers, empowering them to demand fair treatment and real participation in the workplace. All that is opposed by the Government and their supporters on the Conservative Benches.
  Britain's Conservative Government have chosen to opt out of the social chapter and that is entirely consistent with their indifference to the rights of ordinary people, their disregard for decent working standards and their determination to empower no one but themselves. As I have said already, it is consistent with their callous decision to abolish wages councils, the last remaining defence of many low-paid workers against exploitation.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition did on a previous occasion, I shall quote what Winston Churchill once had to say about that.
  "When you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst. Where these conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress but a condition of progressive degeneration."
  Someone on low pay in Britain will now no longer be offered legal protection even at that level. It is the economics of the sweatshop and it should have no place in a civilised society.
  5.45 pm
  Opting out of the social chapter is saying that we should compete with Taiwan on price rather than compete with Germany or France on quality. We will never attract investment on the basis of low wages; we will attract investment only on the basis of the high skills, proficiency and productivity of our working men and women. The best aids to that efficiency and productivity are good working conditions, safe workplaces, good controls on working practices and health and safety and the involvement of the work force in discussion of those matters.
  Opting out of the social chapter goes against that which is clearly understood everywhere else in the Community—that the future has to be in high-quality, high-productivity industry and services. That means training, investment and proper rewards for the people who work in those industries and services.
  Labour wants Britain to be able to stand alongside our European partners and say that we are proud of our work force and that we treat them with the respect and dignity

  409
  that they have earned and deserve. That is why our major objective for the proceedings on the Maastricht Bill will be to reverse the opt-out on the social chapter.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman must.
  Mr. Marlow: It is a fairly important point. It is the difference between our two parties. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that people considering investment in the United Kingdom are not concerned about employment costs. If so, he is living in Mickey Mouse land.
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that, in addition to employment costs, of course, people considering investment in the United Kingdom are concerned about the ability and skills of our working people. Increasingly, Britain is being left behind, first because of disinterest and, secondly, as a previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer said, because our ambition is not a high-tech economy, or a low-tech economy, but a no-tech economy. That was his ambition for British industry.
  If the hon. Gentleman thinks that such an approach to the future of our economy, with the kind of balance of payments deficit and public sector borrowing requirement that we have, is the way forward for Britain, he must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
  To its credit, the organisation of employers in the EC supports the provisions of the social chapter. In an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), speaking for us on employment matters on the issue, the director of social affairs at the UNICE said:
  "The procedure in articles 118A and 118B of the annex is a means of recognising the autonomy of the social partners and of introducing an obligation to consult them on any Commission proposals in the social field. It also introduces a mechanism to realise any agreement of the social partners to be used if they so desire.
  Our clear understanding is that Articles 118a and 118b cannot be used in any way connected with laws relating to strikes or unions, and in any event we would not agree to any agreement which did have such effect."
  That—very clearly and succinctly—blows the Government's whole fraudulent case out of the water. It has been rejected not by the Government's political opponents, or by Governments in other countries, but by the European employers' organisation. That statement by the UNICE was, and is, supported by the Confederation of British Industry: even on home territory. The Government's posture is not supported. Who, then, supports the Government?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The British people.
  Dr. Cunningham: We have to keep reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were not elected by the majority of British people, even in the most recent general election. Even that claim does not bear simple examination.
  No one supports the Government's position—not any Government of any political persuasion in the Community; not any applicant for Community membership, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland or Austria; not the European employers; not the European Parliament; not even the Conservative Members of the European Parliament. They were obliged to sign a declaration in support of the social chapter on joining the European
  410
  People's party: therefore, their isolation is virtually complete. Given the attitudes of Mr. Jean-Marie Le Pen, I suspect that they wish that they did not have his support.
  Had not the social chapter been denied to the British people, I—along with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—could have supported the Bill. We shall continue to press, at every opportunity, for Britain's acceptance of the social chapter: it is right for the British people and for our country. A future Labour Government will immediately sign the social charter and move for the implementation of the social chapter in Britain. That is why we shall not jeopardise the future of this aspect of the Maastricht treaty, which is fundamentally important to our European partners, and that is why I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 27.
  On Second Reading, which seems a very long time ago, I expressed anxiety about the status of the European Court and about its ever-increasing power, which I believe is enhanced by this treaty. Let me say at the outset that I consider the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench to be wholly cynical. Its real reason for wishing to incorporate the social chapter is the fact that it has lost all hope that a socialist party will ever be returned to power in this country. It needs all the assistance that it can find to ensure that someone else can do its dirty work for it.
  On Second Reading, I congratulated my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of State on their skilful negotiation of a position that excluded this country from the social chapter. Since then, I have examined the treaty more carefully, and I now believe that the social chapter is no longer relevant. The treaty covers a series of open doors through which many of the intentions of the social chapter may well be introduced. Although I still admire my right hon. Friends' negotiating skills, I do not believe that that is the end of the story.
  Under amendment No. 27, the existing provisions on social policy contained in the treaty of Rome would be subject to significant interpretation, according to the new objectives set out in article 2. They include "social cohesion and solidarity". For example, article 118a of the treaty of Rome—which concerns the working environment, and the health and safety of workers—would have to be interpreted in the light of article 2 of the Maastricht treaty, and of article 3j, which specifies
  "the strengthening of economic and social cohesion"
  as a Community activity. Paragraph 1 of article 118a of the treaty of Rome states:
  "Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objective the harmonisation of conditions in this area, while maintaining the improvements made."
  Article 118a is subject to qualified majority voting. The provisions on page 31 of the Maastricht treaty bring majority voting in that context into line with the new common operating procedures of article 189c, which—along with article 189b—specify the way in which qualified majority voting is to be handled.
  There is currently much talk of a new Community directive on a 48-hour working week. That directive is based on article 118a, and is therefore likely to be subject to majority voting. If it were agreed, Britain would have to

  411
  comply with its provisions or face action against it in the European Court of Justice. Our opt-out from the social chapter will not help us in that regard.
  The protocol on social policy clearly states—this is important, because it divorces the social chapter from the main body of the treaty—
  "this protocol and … Agreement are without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty, particularly those relating to social policy which constitute an integral part of the 'acquis communautaire.'"
  It is clear that whether we have signed up to the social chapter is irrelevant; we are already obligated to the parts of the treaty that we have already signed up to.
  If we were taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with that Community directive, how could I reassure business men in my constituency of Chingford that they would not find themselves at a considerable disadvantage as a result of the court's ruling, given the extra cost implications? The court would be likely to follow precedents established by previous rulings.
  The court's ruling in the sex discrimination case of Defrenne v. SABENA in 1976 is important, as it gives a clear indication of the way in which the court would rule in this instance. On that occasion, the court ruled
  "to avoid a situation in which undertakings established in States which have actually implemented the principle of equal pay have suffered a competitive disadvantage in intra-Community competition as compared with undertakings established in States which have not yet eliminated discrimination against women workers".
  It is therefore already interpreting in the light of how the majority of the Community is likely to have worked.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not accept the conclusion in that case, which provided for equal treatment for men and women throughout the European Community? Is he saying that the court was wrong to decide as it did?
  6 pm
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am developing a case; I am not judging whether the court was right or wrong in that particular case or with regard to sex discrimination in general. I am trying to prove that the aspects of the treaty which are justiciable from the European Court's point of view will lead the court and other countries to start introducing many of the elements in the social chapter from which we have opted out. I cited the ruling merely as an example of the court's thinking in terms of the acquis communautaire.
  The Defrenne decision was based on the same title of the treaty of Rome dealing with social policy as the 48-hour working week directive with which we are threatened. Sex discrimination in fact falls under the following article, article 119.
  There is powerful evidence that the court would rule that Britain was enjoying an unfair competitive advantage if it did not comply with the 48-hour directive which was in force in other member states. If there is the slightest doubt, it is wholly removed by title II of the Maastricht treaty, because the European Court of Justice would interpret article 118a under the new objectives of article 2, which are "social cohesion and solidarity". That is an important phase. The new objectives would be subject to interpretation under the commitments to which we have already agreed in article 5 of the treaty of Rome, which is an important and powerful article.
  Mr. Marlow: I am perhaps looking to my hon. Friend for legal rather than political advice. The Committee has been told many times that social cohesion has to do with the expenditure of funds in the poorer areas of the Community and nothing to do with social policy. Is my hon. Friend sure that the court would interpret it in that way? Under the new article 118a(2), the impositions under majority voting would have to have regard to the
  "conditions and technical rules obtaining in each of the Member States".
  To what extent would that be a safeguard?
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I believe that "social cohesion" and "solidarity" must be taken together. The European Court must eventually have regard to the spirit underlying all the articles and, bearing in mind what is best for the majority of the Community, decide how the rest are proceeding and why there is some deviation. Essentially, I believe that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the court would not necessarily rule in our favour.
  I give a specific example of article 5 being interpreted by the court to impose continuing obligations on member states. In Cullut v. Centre Leclerk in 1985, the court ruled that member states are allowed to adopt measures which would undermine the effectiveness of the community legislation, even if they do not directly contradict its terms. Therefore, article 5 of the treaty of Rome, although it is not being amended, is of major importance to the debate, because it provides a legal basis on which the general treaty objectives and goals, which many people view as general and undefined, suddenly become very clear and may be converted by a process of interpretation by the European Court of Justice to binding and specific legal rules.
  Article 2, as amended by Maastricht, gives much greater precedence to social objectives. Accordingly, the court will give much more weight to social aspects and determinations.
  Dr. Godman: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the 15th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation from the 1991–92 Session. It refers to the growing power of the European Court of Justice but points out a new factor. Paragraph 34 on page 49 states:
  "The jurisprudence of the Court … recognised a right for individuals (in carefully defined circumstances) to sue their Member States in their national courts for damages flowing from non-implementation of obligations intended for their protection."
  I can envisage a flood of complaints heading for our courts in England, Wales and Scotland on the basis of the treaty.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which stands on its own. To some extent, I agree that these articles will come back to haunt us because of the great and growing power of the European Court to rule over nation state Parliaments and, necessarily, Governments. I believe that I am succeeding in proving that the text provides a route to the European Court of Justice on social matters.
  I list some of the new objectives of article 2 which powerfully prove my point. They include:
  "social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and … social cohesion and solidarity among Member States".
  That is powerful language. In the debate so far, many Members have said that they are general objectives, but I maintain that the general becomes specific once it is bound

  413
  by a court which will rule and interpret—and interpret behind closed doors—and issue its interpretation as a statement.
  I have already said that the protocol on social policy specifically states that it shall not
  "prejudice … the provisions of this Treaty, particularly those relating to social policy which constitute an integral part of the 'acquis communautaire""".
  Therefore, the route that I have demonstrated leaves the door open for substantial Community interference in social policy, effectively undermining our exclusion from the social chapter.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have been trying to follow carefully the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does it not lead to the conclusion that, if all the provisions can be secured by the courts or through other mechanisms, there is very little to be lost by including the social provisions for the United Kingdom as for the other 11 countries?
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I disagree fundamentally with the social chapter, and I congratulated my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Prime Minister on their negotiating skills in keeping us out of it. However, having re-read the treaty, I believe that there is an established route for all of the social provisions to be implemented through the European Court. That poses a challenge, although I have not yet shown how that challenge would arise.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is developing an interesting point. Does he agree that it is probably a fair assumption that the 11 parties which intend to proceed with the treaty will have read it very carefully? If they felt that the objectives were achievable under the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, why does he think that they went to the trouble of making these arrangements—or does he think that he and he alone has espied the route for implementing the objectives under the existing treaty?
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I am not sure whether I alone have espied the route, but I was hoping that my right hon. Friend would be able to prove that I was incorrect. I shall be looking for him to do that at the end of my speech. I could assume a Machiavellian intent on the part of other nations—perhaps they made a big fuss and pushed us to the brink, knowing that they could make a concession but still implement the proposals—but for all 11 countries to think in that way would imply an acquis communautaire which I am not sure necessarily exists.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Whether or not my hon. Friend is the only person to have espied that route, would it not be fair to say that previous British Governments of all complexions have missed the central point of previous legislation amending the treaty of Rome? As my hon. Friend is explaining, that central point is the importance of the preambles and listings of objectives in the legislation. We have sometimes overlooked the combination of the preambles and objectives with some of the detailed wording, because that is not the way in which we go about things. We simply look at the main text of legislation; we do not have a tradition of examining preambles. But other countries have. That is a central point.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: Indeed, that has always been my point. In my maiden speech on Second Reading, I said that
  414
  the European Court of Justice was a more significantly powerful organisation than many of my colleagues on both sides of the House thought, because it had far more latitude than our High Court. If we examine the European Court's rulings, we see that it tends to interpret more according to the spirit of legislation; it looks to the general objectives underlying the words, not necessarily the words alone.
  I believe that it was Lord Mackenzie-Stuart who wrote a couple of letters to The Times about article 3b. I apologise, Mr. Lofthouse, if I appear to be moving away from the amendment, but what I am saying is related to it. Lord Mackenzie-Stuart said that, although politicians had given the European Court a near-impossible task of interpretation, it would none the less do as it had done in the past and interpret according to what it found in the treaty. It has become clear that the court sees that part of its task as to ensure that the interests of the Community as a whole go forward.
  Mr. Marlow: The intervention by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State must have been uncharacteristically naive—because I am sure that he was not dissembling. Is not the reality that the Government have to sell the treaty to a British public who are, to say the least, somewhat sceptical? Among that public are industry, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry. It is important for the Government, as it was for Chamberlain when he stepped off the aeroplane, to come back waving a victory—the victory that we have been excluded from the social chapter. Yet the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) thus far has conclusively proved that we have not been excluded from the social chapter at all. It will be interesting to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister says about it later.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: My hon. Friend's objections stand on their own, and I shall not elaborate on them.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is important to enlarge on the argument about the scope of article 2 and the activities of the Community. Where the Commission feels that it can make a proposal which would command the support of a qualified majority of the Council of Ministers, it merely needs a pretext, and can choose the article under which to achieve such a vote. It is inconceivable that the European Court would subsequently rule against a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: Indeed. All that, which I have previously stated, underlines the point.
  It is never enough simply to prove a route to somewhere. I dare say that it is not difficult to find a route to the European Court of Justice through many parts of the treaty. The key difference is the reason why we may proceed along such a route.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) pointed in the right direction, too. Of course, one of the things that we have learnt is that the Community is a developing process. In the previous debate I tried to clarify the fact that we have seen that there is a desire—understandable, perhaps—on the part of the Commission and its officials to extend their writ into more areas. They sometimes sought

  415
  to do that in ways which did not seem proper to us. In various other debates we have attempted to close those gaps.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) raises an important point, and I shall seek to reply to it in detail later. He has made it clear to the House that we abominate the content of the social protocol—I believe that that is common ground amongst Conservative Members. We believe that it would not only undermine but reverse much of what we have achieved in the past decade. If my hon. Friend has identified a route by which the social chapter could be imported into the treaty, that would be a serious matter, and I shall try later to deal in detail with that important question.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This matter needs much consideration, and I hope that it will receive it.
  As I was saying, it is not enough simply to prove a route. In legal terms, there are always routes to all sorts of decisions. The key is to prove that there is a reason for those routes to be taken. We must consider all 11 of the nations that were behind the social chapter—much of it was generated in France—and ask why we might be dragged down some of those routes. The answer must surely be that—not in one year's time, perhaps not even in two years' time, but as things develop—it will become clear that the United Kingdom is a low-cost country with much simpler worker-management relationships.
  I should applaud that—it will be lauded by all Conservative Members—but France or Holland may say, "It is unfair. The United Kingdom is part of the Community and has signed up to the spirit of all the agreements, yet underneath it all United Kingdom products are becoming very competitive. We are finding it difficult to compete with the British, and they have a right to our market. And it is all because they have no minimum wage and no social objectives, as we have. We can point out many ways in which they are not implementing the agreements."
  Those countries would then encourage the Commission to examine the matter and report that the United Kingdom was in contravention of the body of the treaty. They will say that, under articles 2 and 3, in conjunction with article 118a and bearing in mind article 5, there is a good reason for the Council of Ministers to investigate and bring the United Kingdom into line. They could pick us off in one area at a time.
  That is a powerful reason why either individual nations or the Commission will push for harmony. That would drive the others forward, with us as part of the process rather than our undermining them, which would otherwise happen—and which I should applaud, but which would be seen as a threat to the other nations.
  That is why the other nations will wish to go down that route and challenge us in the European Court. That is why the European Court will, not for the first time, be called to make a judgment on a matter which is now supranational, in an area where we as a Government have distinctly refused to take part. Yet suddenly the European Court will find against us in one area and then another. As qualified majority voting cut in, we should find ourselves in dispute with the other members of the Community. Arguably, that
  416
  would not be the best way to encourage a decent relationship with them—if that is what people want us to do.
  I have tried to demonstrate that the social chapter is already to a greater or lesser extent in the body of the treaty. For Conservative Members the problem is that, although we all applauded the great skills of my right hon. Friends, hidden away underneath everything is not only the route but the reason why we shall be brought to account, whether we like it or not. We shall find that the invidious social provisions will be introduced bit by bit.
  Yet again, the nation state will lose its position and its ability to make decisions. Our opt-out of the social chapter will be put on one side. Who here would say—it may be a wiser man than I—that in 10 years' time the opt-out will not be almost forgotten, and we will not already be tightly bound in to many of the social provisions?
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) will probably not agree with what I have to say, but I do not intend to take quite as long as he did.
  On many occasions, I have been critical of several aspects of the European Communities, but I am certainly not critical of the approach to the social problems of Europe or the socio-economic management of the Community. A few moments ago the Minister of State expressed opposition to the social charter. He said that it undermines the achievements of the last 10 years. Well, what have we achieved? In 1979, Britain was the fifth wealthiest country in the world; it is now the 15th. In the past 10 years, we have seen wastelands created, industries wiped out and social and economic devastation inflicted on many parts of the country, which is rapidly becoming criminalised. We have become a criminal, impoverished, under-invested and paganised nation. When someone, even in Brussels, offers to help to get us out of the mess, we have evasion, pompous and unjustifiable boasts, such as we have heard from the Minister, and further evidence of the decline in public standards.
  In my brief remarks I shall refer to one aspect of the social policy of Europe—the structural funds through RECHAR. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will recall a debate of about a year ago in which he and I participated. Hon. Members with constituencies in which there are coalfields that have been devastated in the past decade became increasingly concerned about the fact that, although the British Government were receiving resources through the structural fund, we did not seem to be getting any benefit. We had very serious misgivings. We pressed the Government about the matter and, in response, they assured us that the money was flowing to the coalfields.
  But then Mr. Bruce Millan, acting responsibly and properly in fulfilment of his duty as a Commissioner, established beyond all doubt that the Government were receiving this money but were not passing it to the coalfields. He said that, as the money was not going to the coalfields, he would not pass it to the British Government. Conservative Member after Conservative Member denounced Mr. Millan, and Ministers said that he was acting irresponsibly. Members of the Government subjected him to the most appalling, irresponsible and dishonest condemnation and criticism. Not a single Member from the Treasury Bench had the guts to admit that Bruce Millan was right.

  417
  Some hon. Members went to see Ministers about the matter. At one meeting, I pointed out that the Government's claim that the money was being paid to the coalfield areas could not stand up. Let me refer to the way in which I illustrated the point. The Government had worked out their disbursements to local authorities in September of the year in question—two or three years ago—and said that in those disbursements they had allocated the RECHAR money. But it was not until three months after they had calculated the aid for the coalfield areas that the Government found out what the RECHAR money for the following year would be.
  We challenged the Minister to consult the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade but was then at the Department of the Environment, and find out whether he could deny that charge. The response of the right hon. Gentleman was to leak a letter referring to the pressure to which he and his colleagues were being subjected by Labour Members of Parliament who had—he did not use these words—rumbled the Government's approach.
  At that point the Government, quietly—very quietly indeed—accepted that Mr. Millan was right. That was after we found out that they had not met Mr. Millan for about 18 months. But they did not tell their friends—or those whom they sometimes assume to be their friends—that Mr. Millan's action was justified. They had spent 12 months or more blackguarding the Commissioner for action that was entirely responsible and proper, but they did not take any significant steps to offer the public apology or expression of regret that was due to our former colleague. Indeed, I know that Conservative Members and Ministers tramped round the country linking Mr. Millan's action with the evils of the so-called social policy. How is it that Germany, France, Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have all passed Britain in the international prosperity tables while they have pursued policies which are acceptable to their peoples but are apparently not to be accepted in this country, which is in rapid economic and social decline?
  I assumed that the Government had turned over a new leaf—that they had accepted that Mr. Millan was right and that they would in future pass on the social funds. But, a short while ago, I received from the Minister for Industry a letter whose contents the Committee needs to know, because the Government are about to change their policy as quietly as possible—as quietly as they sought to retrieve their position following the dishonesty about Mr. Millan's intervention.
  The letter says:
  "You ask about future assistance from European Structural Funds for coalmining areas. RECHAR must be considered together with all the other Structural Funds Community Initiatives … Taken together, the Initiatives cannot be shown to have brought the UK more than if the same money had been spent on ordinary … programmes."
  What the Minister meant was that the initiatives could not be shown to have brought to Britain from Europe any more than had been received before, when the funds were buried in the moneys that allowed the Government to pursue a tax-cutting policy that did not have any economic advantage for the country.
  The letter goes on:
  "However, the Government shares the view … that there have been too many Community Initiatives."
  418
  For that reason, the Government will seek to end the RECHAR programme. However, they offer the comforting sop that they will make good use of RECHAR while it lasts. The letter continues:
  "the Government will continue to give all due priority to the needs of areas such as South Yorkshire, though you will accept, I am sure, that regions with needs unrelated to coal must also receive their fair share."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will recognise, even the current Government pretend to accept that the coalfield areas are in particular need. Brussels not only recognised that fact, but sought to do something about it. We were extremely grateful when Mr. Millan sought to compel the Government to do something about it. We had hoped that acceptance of the accuracy Mr. Millan's statements might lead the Government to maintain the provision of these funds for areas like ours, which, had the Government had their way in October, would have seen further blight at enormous public cost. We now have very good grounds to be suspicious of the Government and not at all ungrateful for some of the actions in Brussels.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely powerful and knowledgeable argument. I think that no hon. Member knows more about this situation. Can he confirm that the obligations arising from RECHAR and other moneys intended to assist coalfield areas and other declining industrial regions arose as the result of an obligation under the treaty of Paris, which was subsumed within the treaty of Rome, and that the Government not only were duplicitous in their treatment of the RECHAR moneys but also offended against—if they did not actually break—the treaty obligations undertaken when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up, long before the days of European Economic Community and the treaty of Rome?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is quite right. What we have seen from the Government is a repudiation of some of the basic principles on the basis of which they were eager to enter the Community. Apparently they are eager to remain in the Community so long as it does not affect that small proportion of the British people on whom they believe we all depend—the entrepreneurs. There is a place for the entrepreneur, but there must also be a place for a decent society. The Government have rejected that decency.
  I mentioned the hon. Member for Southend, East. He will recall a debate in which we discussed RECHAR. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that his argument was that money should not go to the coalfield areas, but that it should be used to assist all the British people. I am sure that he accepts that, although people who live in places such as Southend are not free from problems, which may be exacerbated if the Government pursue their policy towards British Rail, there are areas in which levels of unemployment, and economic and environmental devastation have risen and have now reached chronic proportions.
  6.30 pm
  The Government now say that moneys from Europe should assist everyone and not only areas in which there are special needs. I submit that the Government have no sense of reasonable priorities and no understanding of the fact that they are supposed to represent the whole nation. Given that, it is wrong to have Britain in an isolated position in Europe.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are problems for some local authorities? There is a strong possibility that they will not be able to take up the RECHAR moneys because of cuts in public expenditure. They will not have the moneys to meet their part of the cost of projects that are so important to communities such as my own.
  Mr. Hardy: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that I represent a coalfield area, as he does. I know that he has great familiarity with, and knowledge of, such areas. I strongly suspect that, when Ministers in the Department of Employment consider the implications of the 1991 census, they will be astonished. There is excessive complacency about unemployment, and the Government believe their own figures. They are foul in their present form as official measurement, and they are obscene in reality. In areas of high unemployment, the 1991 census will reveal the astonishingly low levels of people in work.
  Given that reality, which is not exposed by Government statistics, there is an urgent need for a far greater priority to be given to social and socio-economic policy. It seems astonishing that there is a contemptuous rejection of the social charter, which is more relevant to Britain's needs than it is to the needs of most of our competitor countries, which have not suffered the economic decline that Britain has experienced over the past 10 years.
  I am extremely critical of many aspects of Europe, but the social charter is not one of them. Of all the aspects of the treaty, the social charter is the one which we should be eager to espouse. We should not reject it with the rather contemptuous and careless approach which is typical of the Government's attitude.
  Mr. Jenkin: This is the first time that I have been called to speak in a debate on the Bill. The present group of amendments allows a fairly wide-ranging debate. Before picking up two or three threads that have already been teased a little by right hon. and hon. Members, I will briefly set out my general attitude to the Bill.
  I am pro-Europe and pro-Community and I have always been so. One of the disturbing aspects of the argument on this group of amendments is that I have never before felt the need to protest my pro-Community credentials. I have expressed my misgivings about the treaty on European union and people seem determined to misconstrue my motives.
  Why should the social aspects be brought into the Community at all? The true intent of the Maastricht treaty is that it should lead to a federal Europe. Why should a truly separate economic pillar include matters such as social protection and social cohesion and solidarity, especially if our opt-out from the social chapter is to free us from those very activities?
  I do not suggest, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of state said, that I want to see nothing more than a market in the Community. I point out the inconsistency in arguing in favour of a union based on well-defined pillars while making changes to the economic pillar which weaken its identity. The indisputable effect of what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford has already described in his extremely able speech, which included many cogent arguments, is to increase the breadth of the European Economic Community's activities so that the change in
  420
  name is entirely relevant because it betrays the much expanded scope that was given to the Community at Maastricht.
  I shall point out some of the developments that will not be reversed. The Maastricht treaty is determined to maintain what it calls the acquis communautaire. When Ministers speak to Conservative party conferences and publish Conservative party documents in which they claim that the direction of the treaty has been reversed, one can only assume that they have been deeply misinformed.
  I take as an example the proposed directive on the 48-hour working week. The directive has been delayed, but the important point about it is that it was completely unforeseen by the Government. Assurances were given to the effect that anyone would have believed that such a directive was impossible to achieve. The Government have, admittedly, reserved their position to go to the European Court to plead that the matter is outside the scope of the powers of the Community, but Ministers have been advised to negotiate the 48-hour working week directive on the basis that they had better agree something because they might otherwise have something even worse imposed on them.
  What assurances can Ministers give us this evening that the process is not going to continue, using article 118a, and drawing on the objectives at the beginning of article 2, on the activities in article 3 and on article 5, as demonstrated in the case alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford?
  I draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to another recent development on the social side under the existing treaty of Rome, which is being specifically preserved in the acquis communautaire to which the Maastricht treaty refers. I have here a cutting from the Observer of 17 January 1993, which says:
  "The Home Office has 'put on ice' plans to privatise prison education."
  Opposition Members may be pleased. However, here we have another part of the social sphere being imposed on the United Kingdom without any warning. The article continues:
  "Kent has won the go-ahead for a High Court judicial review and has been joined in the action by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. Natfhe will argue that contracting out is illegal if it does not abide by European Community directive guaranteeing equal rights and conditions for public sector workers whose jobs are transferred to private companies."
  Here we have the possibility of a European Community directive, whose scope is being potentially expanded by a European Court ruling, encompassing the entire contracting-out programme and the entire programme of a whole Government Department—the Office of Public Service and Science—and bringing the whole thing to a halt. That is the problem that we are faced with when implementing further competencies in the treaty, regardless of whether we feel that we have opted out of them. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer; I simply wish to ask the Minister to give assurances that the social legislation that the Community seeks to put upon us will be prevented.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept—I think that it is widely accepted—one of the burdens of the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that the Commission, sometimes for perfectly laudable, motives, sometimes not so laudable has sought in the past and will continue to seek, I am sure, to extend its writ into areas where we

  421
  would not wish it to go. It is my belief, and we are making the case as we go through the Committee, that this treaty inhibits the Commission more than it was inhibited before.
  The crucial point is this. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that everything in the protocol that is the subject of the Opposition amendment is unacceptable to him, to me and to most other Conservatives; and even if I were to accept the risk that there will be efforts—of course there will be—to push the ball in another direction, surely he and I would not wish to bring about a position where there is any risk whatever that the opt-out that we have obtained from these provisions is put in jeopardy. That is precisely what Opposition Members are trying to do.
  Mr. Jenkin: Whether or not I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point, I wish that the British Government would be honest about the effects of the treaty. We have one assertion after another that black is white and white is black, in defiance of the text of the treaty.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Committee when we discussed the last group of amendments to do with training and education. That is a very good example of where the Community has begun to insert itself into an area by simple majority voting; under the terms of this treaty, its ability to do so is restricted and defined and we move up from simple majority to qualified majority voting. That is an advance on the earlier position and it is just one example of the way in which this treaty improves our position from the position under the Single European Act.
  Mr. Jenkin: I gave way to my right hon. Friend, expecting him to make a point about the group of amendments that we are discussing at the moment. If there was some specific exclusion clause, apart from the exclusion clause to that protocol, which related to articles 2 and 3, I would feel more reassured, but that is not the case.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the area which I touched on and to which he has alluded— article 5 of the treaty of Rome—gives significant and powerful support to the case that the European Court will be forced to interpret? Therefore, to some degree, it is irrelevant whether individual nation states or Governments wish a certain thing; what is important is what the view of the European Court will be, particularly in the light of some of the judgments that Lasok and Bridge have produced in their period of recording.
  Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that leads me to my concluding point.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Minister is trying to cover his nakedness by referring to education. I am afraid that it does not cover anything and the sight is still pretty disagreeable. The Government thought that the Lingua programme was illegal, yet still, under the previous treaty, it was imposed upon us and in the new treaty the Lingua programme is enshrined. This just reinforces the point that my hon. Friend makes: the Government say one thing—they have said one thing before—but the reality is always different.
  Mr. Jenkin: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes.
  I conclude by drawing attention to the motives of our European partners. They will wish to make us bear the same burdens of cost as they currently envisage bearing themselves under the social chapter and they will seek whichever way they can to make sure that we bear those costs. Even though we wish to opt out of the 48-hour working week directive—I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on doing a very good job of muddying the waters—it is impossible to imagine a situation in which, 11 member states having voted for a particular directive, the court will not rule against us if we continue to defy the directive.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Wells: The 48-hour working week to which my hon. Friend refers has been introduced by the Commission under article 118a of the existing treaty, as amended by the Single European Act. The British are disputing that the Commission can do so under that article because we do not believe that it is a matter of health and safety at work. The Maastricht treaty, with its subsidiarity clause, inhibits or begins to slow down the process and asks the Commission and the whole of the Community whether they are right to extend their powers into this domestic legislative arena. Surely, therefore, the Maastricht treaty is an advance in the direction in which my hon. Friend would like the Community to go.
  My hon. Friend should have a little more confidence in the European Court sustaining British objections to proceeding on the 48-hour week under article 118a.
  Mr. Jenkin: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to articles 2 and 3 of the treaty compared with what is in the existing Rome treaty. We have considerable additions which will widen the scope of the European Court's rulings and widen the competence of the Community, particularly in social affairs. Even though we have opted out of a separate list of social policy objectives, we are still wide open to the 48-hour working week, and perhaps more so, because we will have less defence against the 48-hour working week if we sign up to such matters as
  "economic and social cohesion and solidarity among the Member States",
  to quote from the treaty.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: In his concern, has my hon. Friend taken on board the fact that 10 out of 12 countries in the European Community have already ratified the treaty, which permits this country to opt out of the entire social chapter? Does he not consider that in those circumstances he might be better advised to be arguing the case alongside the Government instead of against them? If we had had any other Government elected last year, he and I and Front-Bench spokesmen would all be together in opposing what a Labour Government might have produced, which would have included this particular social chapter.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady unfortunately missed the cogent and able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith).
  Mrs. Currie: I am asking you.
  Mr. Jenkin: I would be very happy to take my hon. Friend through Hansard tomorrow morning and point out

  423
  the argument. I can give her the answer if she wishes, but I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than necessary. It relates, in summary, to the way in which article 118a can be used now in conjunction with the approval procedures in article 189c, using the objectives laid out in article 2 and the new activities of the treaty laid out in article 3, in conjunction with article 5, where it says that it is against Community law to frustrate the objectives of this treaty. If one takes that as meaningless, have no fear, but the truth of the matter, as we have learnt from the Single European Act, is that the preambles and objectives of those treaties are vital.
  The European Court will draw upon the objectives of the treaty to inform its rulings and the Commission knows that. When the Commission initiates legislation in the knowledge that it can get a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers and that the European Court will draw upon the objectives laid out in articles 2 and 3, one can be confident that we are going to find ourselves in a minority. The Government's lawyers will tell Ministers, "You had better agree and sign up to something better than nothing, or you will have the worst imposed upon you."
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend perhaps correct the issue over the 48-hour directive by consulting Hansard? Does he appreciate that, when the Minister of State, Department of Employment, was asked about going to the court over the 48-hour directive, his answer was that he would consider doing so if it remained in its present form, but not necessarily if it was changed in some respect?
  Is my hon. Friend aware that the negotiations on the 48-hour directive are nearly complete and that one of the agreed parts is that French bakers are exempt from the 48-hour week but British bakers are not? Will my hon. Friend consult the Hansard record of yesterday's Question Time and read question No. 2 for the right answer on the 48-hour week being challenged in the court?
  Mr. Jenkin: I will certainly consult Hansard.
  Mrs. Currie: I am most impressed with the way in which my new colleague is approaching the issue, but I put it to him that the broad principles on which he is objecting have been dealt with in earlier debates and were passed with large majorities. The Single European Act, which is the source of much of what he is complaining about, passed through the House some years ago with large majorities. Is my hon. Friend going to stand by his principles, with which many Conservative Members agree, and vote with the Government tonight?
  Mr. Jenkin: The contention of the Government and, I presume, of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), is that the Maastricht treaty somehow addresses the concerns that we have come to experience in the Single European Act. My contention and that of a growing number of people in this country is that that is not the case and that every aspect of increased competence in the European Community increases the likelihood that we are going to finish up with laws being imposed upon us which we do not want.
  It seems extraordinary to say that we have lessons to learn from the Single European Act and then to grasp tenfold the same mistakes in the Maastricht treaty. The objectives of the treaty are laid out before my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. If she cares to read
  424
  them and obtain an understanding of how the legal structures in the Community are likely to work, we might be in a position to avoid making the same mistake.
  I have detained the Committee long enough. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to intervene at this point. This is the first time that I have addressed the Committee on these provisions, and I am glad to do so. My party and I not only support the objective of being a full member of the European Community and playing a full part as a full partner, not as someone who picks and chooses which parts of the package he wants and insists on having exceptions for other parts, but we agree with the objective of amendment No. 7 in order for the social provisions that are available to the other 11 member states to be available also to us in Wales.
  I say that for the reason that we in Wales, as has been reflected in election after election, look for a balance of social and economic policy which is different from the balance of social and economic policy that is reflected in the Chamber. Quite frankly, we are more likely to get the social policy that our people in Wales want from the European institutions than we are likely to get from Westminster, Whitehall and the Government who, election after election, are returned to the House of Commons.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with care, not least because I know that he and his party are very committed to the Maastricht treaty and wish to see it ratified. It seems likely that the amendment will not be voted on for some time. If the amendment were to be carried, the treaty of Rome must be amended, a further intergovernmental conference would have to take place, and then further ratifications would have to take place. It really is playing with fire for anyone to support the official Opposition's amendment.
  Mr. Wigley: If the position is as outlined by the Minister of State, that surely is a consideration that he and his Government should have taken on board when they negotiated the way to exclude the social provisions from the treaty. The Government have cobbled together this exclusion for internal party policy, in order to hold together a coalition on the Conservative Benches to overcome the general election that took place in April. It is nasty internal politics and not the objective of what is best not only for the peoples of the islands of Britain but for the development of unity within Europe, which the right hon. Gentleman wants to see as much as I do.
  The workings of the single market cannot possibly take place in the fulness of time if 11 member states have a certain minimal provision in social matters that relate very directly to the economy, to the labour force and to the costs of production and manufacture. A minimum provision is required of those 11 members, and there is a 12th member of the European Community that does not have those rules, applying to it and, therefore, as the Government themselves have boasted, is enabled to have a cut-price economy and has tried to obtain a competitive advantage over the other 11 members. We cannot build a united Europe—a Europe in which the 12 member states trust one another, co-operate with one another and work

  425
  towards common objectives—if that let-out is allowed for one member state in order to obtain a competitive advantage.
  Dr. Godman: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) said, among many other things, that, despite the exclusion of the social chapter, the European Court of Justice, given the powers that it has, seemingly, of a supreme court with regard to the 12 nations, could defend the interests of workers and trade unionists in relation to article 118a. The hon. Member for Chingford seemed to suggest that the European Court of Justice could protect and promote the interests of ordinary people, despite the Government's exclusion of the social chapter.
  Mr. Wigley: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) with considerable interest. It was an exceptionally good speech and it was delivered in a manner which was a great credit to the Committee. It was a thoughtful speech. Perhaps we should hear more such speeches. The hon. Gentleman begged the question for himself and for his colleagues—perhaps he will throw it back at us—that, if it is possible to use the courts and other provisions which have been agreed and which would be applicable to us in order to sustain the social provisions that are otherwise dependent upon the chapter from which we are excluded, perhaps there is no need to have the social chapter in it at all. Perhaps we can rely on that.
  If that is the case, as I asked him in an intervention, what is the argument against having that full provision so that at least we would know where we stood? It would then be clear cut and we would not have the inevitable uncertainty involved in going to the courts on questions of interpretation.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I shall try to answer that question. Conservative Members abhor the social chapter because we think that it essentially destroys the competitiveness of this country but, from the point of view of those who would wish to have it, it tidies up all the provisions in one clearly identifiable aspect. The hon. Gentleman can see the matter from the other point of view as well as our reluctance to have the social chapter. My point is that, with or without our signature appended to it, most of the provisions will be found in a variety of ways in the body of the treaty.
  7 pm
  Mr. Wigley: I respect the hon. Gentleman's position. If he and his colleagues were to say that we are not allowed to exclude ourselves from these social provisions, we would be happy not to be members of the open market and the free movement of people, goods and capital with free competition, which has been the basis of development in the European context recently.
  To argue that we should be allowed to have our own laws on labour, standards, working conditions, information, consultation of workers, equality between men and women and all the other provisions in the treaty, which would give us a competitive edge over the other 11 member states in the Community, and then expect them to treat us
  426
  as an equal member does not hold water. We should not be allowed to compete and undercut the other 11 member states in their own marketplace.
  Mrs. Currie: That matter is obviously the heart of the debate. Many Government Members think that the social chapter is bad for the whole of Europe. We strongly believe—I certainly do—that the opportunities for employment are diminished by raising the cost of employment. One need look only at a modern factory which is crammed to the eyeballs with equipment to see what the effect might be.
  Mr. Wigley: I know that the hon. Lady is a good European. She has aspirations to play a fuller part on the European stage. I am sure that, as a good democrat, she will accept that, if unanimity is as great—if the people and political parties within the 11 member states agree with this—we may well have to accept it in the name of the European Community, which we believe is important, and in the name of the level playing field which we believe is important for the companies which are competing with each other in the marketplace.
  Mr. John Butcher: I know that the hon. Gentleman has great experience in industry, and his views must be respected in that regard. In his own words, he has vividly illustrated precisely why it will be intolerable to the other nations which have adopted the social chapter on competition policy grounds. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said.
  The advice which I have received from outside is that our exemption will be so intolerable that the other member states will bring their action on the grounds of competition policy through, first, qualified majority voting in the Commission and, secondly, interpretation of competition in the protocols and elsewhere. Once the French and the Germans wake up to the fact that it is 25 per cent. cheaper to employ British engineers to do the same job, and the effect that that will have on European investment, there will most certainly be such an action.
  Mr. Wigley: Yes; and I respect the ministerial background which the hon. Gentleman has in such matters. His argument is that the provisions will come through one door or another because of the imperative of the discrepancy which arises. There will be an imperative on other countries to cut out the unfair competition of which we are taking advantage. I simply say this: let us have it clear. Let us have it on the face of the Act so that we know where we stand. Everyone involved will know that the social provisions are there in black and white and that we agree with them.
  I know that the Committee is divided on the question of whether the provisions should be available, given that they were supported and advocated by 11 of the 12 member states across the board in Europe, with the only exceptions being the Conservative party and Le Pen in France. In the name of democracy and in the name of the free competition which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and his colleagues have advocated for so many years, surely we must have democratic unanimity if a united Europe means anything at all.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that low wages create full employment? If

  427
  that were the case, would not India probably be one of the richest countries in the world, with full employment, and would not Germany be experiencing tremendous poverty and mass unemployment?
  Mr. Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly. The future for our manufacturing industry must be based on quality, investment, technological development and being able to compete with German, French, Spanish and Italian industry head on. We should be inventive, take our products to the marketplace, and be able to win in that context. That is the only future on which we can build a high-wage economy and an economy which can sustain the social payments which are essential for our people.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is advancing the proposition that, if 11 member states believe something to be the case, Britain is bound to agree with it in the end and should agree with it out of community spirit.
  I agree that one of the objectives is that the Community should seek consensus wherever it can find it. On that basis, let us take the British abatement. Does the hon. Gentleman argue that, because the other 11 member states disagree with the abatement, the Government should give way on it? On the basis of what the Government have done on the social protocol, surely one of the purposes of democracy is that they sought and received the support of the British people for what they did.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friends can be assured that not just the protocol exempts the United Kingdom from any acts taken under it. We do not hesitate to stand on that position, even if we must stand alone.
  Mr. Wigley: I understand that there are times when a principle is so fundamental that a nation must stand alone, whatever the rest of the world is saying. However, I do not believe that our insistence on keeping the social provisions for working people, working conditions, information and equality between men and women is such a fundamental argument that we stand alone against all comers.
  As far as the abatement argument is concerned, every country will argue for the best financial deal. It is perfectly natural, and any Government should be doing that. When it comes to the building blocks on which the new open market will be constructed—where fair competition will exist, where there is a level playing field, where company and enterprise compete and where 11 of the 12 member states have one set of rules and the other has another set of rules which gives a competitive edge which hon. Members have talked about and which Ministers have boasted about—how on earth can such provisions remain? It is only a transitional provision, which must crumble within a short period.
  Government Members would be more honest if they faced up to that. We must put the treaty's provisions into legislation rather than have some bridging provisions which are convenient for the Conservative party. The Conservative party is leading the British public down the garden path as far as these provisions are concerned. It is selling employees short.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The argument that it is unfair to have a competitive edge is interesting. Is it not the case that that is exactly what trade is about? Trade is about using the competitive advantage. Will we have sunshine everywhere? Will olives grow everywhere? Will there be
  428
  any difference in the utopian world which the hon. Gentleman is painting, or will there be a competitive edge? Perhaps that is a point in favour of our side.
  Mr. Wigley: With respect, we are trying to build a competitive edge in law. A competitive edge is secured by innovation, scientific and technological research and investment in plant and machinery to produce better products, which is needed. We must then recommend those products in the marketplace and get a larger slice of the marketplace.
  That is what it is all about. It is not about the whole basis of the Common Market before the European Community existed. The whole basis has been about getting a level playing field. In the Bill we are building a playing field on a slope. Government Members may believe that it is a lasting basis, but I suggest that it is a basis which cannot possibly remain. The basis may last for the duration of the Bill if the Government can cobble together a majority on it, but within a year or two pressures from other countries, possibly through the Chingford route which was referred to—through the courts—will mean that it will not last. It would be more honest for us to face up to that now.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman talks about a common market. Is he aware that industry in Germany—especially engineering industry, as I learned from a visit on Monday—is already conscious that it needs to shed the shackles of the social policy that has been imposed on it formerly by trade unions and now by Maastricht? It will work within Germany to reform those provisions. So I suggest that our competitive edge will last only a short time.
  Mr. Wigley: I can well imagine that the cancer in the thought of the Government could spread. When the British Government tell industrialists in Germany that we have a competitive edge over them, that we have cheap labour and that we can undercut them, of course they will say that they do not want the social chapter either. The cancer could run through the whole of Europe. The social provisions which have been built up in Germany, Denmark and other countries could be undermined by the thinking of this reactionary Conservative Government.
  The Government wish to increase profits by undermining the rights of employees—rights which have been enshrined in the treaty. The social chapter creates a minimum standard. It is not a straitjacket. It acknowledges that many countries may want to go beyond that standard.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Wigley: I should like to make progress, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  I draw it to the attention of the Committee that the social chapter includes a provision which says:
  "before submitting proposals in the social policy field, the Commission shall consult management and labour on possible direction of Community action."
  Presumably we are excluded from that consultation. The Commission will consult people on both the management and the labour side in 11 member states but will not consult them in the United Kingdom when formulating policy of considerable importance within the Commission.

  429
  As it is important within the Commission, it will affect policy on many other issues. European social policy will inevitably affect Britain indirectly.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that there are great matters of principle. It may have escaped his notice that one of the core debates in Britain in the past decade has been about corporatism and the way in which the corporate approach to industry has damaged our competitiveness and prospects. He may not like it, but Conservative Members wear it as a badge of honour that the policies that we have pursued have produced four election victories for us. If the Labour party wants to import the social protocol into the treaty of Rome, it had better win an election.
  Mr. Wigley: I understand the Minister's warnings about the corporate approach. I understand its dangers and the lessons that we must learn from the post-war history of Britain. I was making the point a moment ago that the Commission would develop policies. That right has not been taken away from the Commission. It will develop policies in many areas and will be influenced by the opinion of management and labour in 11 out of the 12 member states. The conclusions reached will inevitably affect Britain.
  The provisions of the social chapter also say:
  "The Commission shall draw up a report each year on progress in achieving the objectives of Article 1, including the demographic situation in the Community."
  The effects of the demographic situation in the Community must be the basis on which regional policy will be developed. Demographic considerations are fundamental to regional policy. The Commission will take information from 11 out of the 12 member states, from which reports will be compiled on the demographic situation in Europe. Those reports will undoubtedly underpin the regional policy pursued by the Commission. We shall miss out. Wales, Scotland and the regions of England will miss out. They desperately need a proactive regional policy to counter the inevitable centralisation that will accompany the creation of the free market.
  If we intend to remain in the European Community and play a full part, we must be right in the centre. We must not look for exclusions such as that from the social chapter in an attempt to buy a short-term competitive edge which we know cannot be sustained. It would be far better for us to be in there, advocating the improvement of standards for working people in our industry as well as the industry of Europe. It would be better for us to be there when the Commission develops policies which affect other countries so that our circumstances and needs are taken into account. We must not be regarded for another decade as an offshore island which cannot determine whether or not we want to be part of Europe.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: I wish to establish two points. The first is that the amendment is a wrecking amendment to the treaty of Maastricht. The second is that the amendment is undesirable.
  When the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rebutted my intervention, he said that I did not understand the position. The position as I understand it is as follows. Changes were made to the interpretation of
  430
  the treaty at the Edinburgh summit to allow the Danes to have a second referendum. However, the amendment proposes a change to the body of the treaty. The treaty clearly specifies that Britain will not take part in the deliberations on the provisions of the social chapter or in their implementation. Therefore, the amendment would require the renewal of the ratification procedures in all the other EC member countries. It might require a new referendum in France and Ireland.
  I understand the Opposition Front-Bench team saying that the other countries might be in sympathy with us because they supported the social chapter. That might be so, but they would face a severe legal problem. Their peoples and their Parliaments agreed to a specific treaty which did not include Britain in the social chapter.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman referred to the referendums in Ireland and France. Does he accept that in their referendums the peoples of France and Ireland ratified not simply the treaty but the protocols?
  Mr. Milligan: Precisely. The social chapter is a protocol to the treaty. If the hon. Gentleman reads page 117 he will find the specific protocol. That was the protocol which people in France and Ireland ratified.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Let me assist both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they will recall that there was a moment at which the Republic of Ireland had some problems with the proposals on abortion and its constitution. It asked its partners for a minor amendment to one protocol which would have had no effect on any other country. Ireland was denied such an amendment because it would have prompted ratification by all member states. So Opposition Members have no escape: they have tabled a wrecking amendment.
  Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I understand Opposition Members' political point that if they had negotiated the treaty they would have included the social chapter. But they did not. We are dealing with a treaty and the House must either accept it or reject it. The amendment is a wrecking amendment.
  The second point that I wish to establish is that the amendment is undesirable. It is inappropriate for the Community to legislate on social matters. The treaty has established the principle of subsidiarity, which is that, wherever possible, issues should be decided at national level. One can put the case for social intervention and regulation of hours and wages, but that is a national decision. It is not appropriate for the Community to act in such matters.
  In any case, the social chapter is damaging. Many Opposition Members have spoken of their concern for jobs. Conservative Members are also concerned for jobs. However, the fact is that raising industry's costs by introducing new regulations such as the 48-hour week—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) said, is a damaging sign of what might come if we accepted the social chapter—would not create jobs. It would damage businesses and especially small businesses. It would be bad for Britain.
  There is also an issue of freedom. In my constituency we have two bakeries. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is not in the Chamber. He spoke of the exclusion of the French

  431
  bakeries. There is no exclusion for British bakeries. The Mr. Kipling plant is in my constituency. As hon. Members may know it produces, "exceedingly good mince pies." British Bakeries is also in my constituency.
  People work extremely long hours for not very high wages in those plants, and may work 60 or 70 hours a week in shifts starting at 6 pm and ending at 6 am. They do not work those hours because they like to do so, but because they want to earn money to feed their families. They have the right to work long hours if they choose. It is not right for bureaucrats in Brussels or Whitehall to determine what hours they should work.
  The Labour party has always been committed to the principle of free collective bargaining and that is the chant that we have heard so often. Why is that not allowed to apply in this case? If trade union members freely agree that they wish to work long hours, why should a regulation made in Brussels—or a part of the Maastricht treaty, if Opposition Members have their way—be allowed to stop them? That would be a fundamental contradiction of a basic human right? I should be interested to know from the Labour Front Bench whether a Labour Government would allow free collective bargaining to dominate and whether they would allow workers the right to choose to work more than a 48-hour week.
  The exclusion of the social chapter has positive advantages to this country as well as removing some negative aspects that might be associated with its adoption. Mr. Delors has said that this country will be a paradise for Japanese investment, which has been one of the few encouraging areas of job creation in recent years. More Japanese investment would be extremely good news for this country and for jobs.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the spectre of our undercutting our continental rivals. What is the danger in that? Surely that is what we must achieve if we want more jobs and increased exports, and if we want to put our balance of payments right.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we should undercut them by virtue of our design, efficiency and use of capital, rather than by using legislation to build in the sort of edge that cannot possibly last?
  Mr. Milligan: Frankly, I would agree to any edge that would create more jobs and prosperity. I believe that it will last, but even if it does not, let us take advantage of it while we can. I do not see any disadvantages.
  The hon. Member for Copeland said that we could compete with Taiwan on price, but that we should be competing with Germany on quality. In the export business, one must compete on both price and quality. Unfortunately, British industry has not always succeeded in competing on quality, which means that we have a greater need to compete on price. The exclusion of the social chapter will bring us positive advantages in crucial export markets.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said that we were already suffering from the effects of the treaty of Rome, and that the exclusion of the social chapter would not make a great difference. First, we are not debating the treaty of Rome—
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I never said that we were already suffering. I said that the treaty of Rome was empowered to a greater extent by the social policy amendments. We are
  432
  discussing that treaty because we are discussing amendments to it and there may be a link with the European Court of Justice because of the route that we are choosing to take. Elements of the social chapter may have to be introduced. I was not saying anything else.
  Mr. Milligan: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. In his speech, he said that there is a danger that the European Court might interpret the phrase "greater economic and social cohesion" in a way that would be unfavourable to this country. I believe that that phrase has little meaning. One could say that there was a danger that the court could interpret anything to mean something that we do not want it to mean, but we must work on the assumption that the treaty says what it means.
  Mr. William Cash: It is precisely for that reason that I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the treaty is riddled with socialist engineering and social philosphy. The cohesion funds, which are clearly stated in the treaty and which we are subscribing to, are nothing more or less than socialism in every conceivable respect. Does he not agree that, for that good reason, we have no reason to sign up for many of the provisions in the treaty?
  Mr. Milligan: For once, I would entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Yes, the treaty contains social engineering —the social chapter, which we have opted out of, and which we are discussing. If by social engineering he means the phrase greater "economic and social cohesion", then he is reading far too much into it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milligan: I shall not give way again. I hope that Conservative Members can ally on that issue because we are all agreed that the social chapter, the social charter and the social protocol are damaging to jobs in this country and I hope that we can all find ourselves in the same Lobby on that issue.
  Mr. Giles Radice: May I begin by declaring an injury, Dame Janet? I have a sprained ankle, but it was caused not by a hostile Euro-sceptic but by an over-enthusiastic Hampstead dog. It means that my speech will be very short and, with your indulgence, I shall have to stand while taking interventions because it is too painful for me to sit down.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Of course, we understand and will waive the usual rules where there is an injury—but not for anyone else.
  Mr. Radice: Thank you very much, Dame Janet.
  On the Conservative side, the debate has been an argument between the anti and pro-Europeans about whether the social chapter is excluded from the treaty and whether it will be watertight, rather than a debate about the advantages of the social chapter, which says something about the modern Conservative party. I think that I may safely predict that, if either the Heath or the Macmillan Governments had been negotiating the treaty, we would have had the social chapter. Only the modern Conservative party would have opted out in such a way, which says something about what has happened to that party.
  Although the social chapter is outside the treaty, it is very much part of the system that the treaty sets up,

  433
  because member states, except for the United Kingdom, accepted that social progress for people is as important as the free movement of goods, services and capital, and that is a good principle.
  As the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, rightly said, no one falls in love with the single market. If one wants a European Community which has the support of the people it must have a social dimension. Indeed, the Government recognise the force of that argument, because they are slightly worried about it. I have heard the Minister who is responsible for European affairs saying that the Government are in favour of the European Community having a social dimension. However, when they are offered the prospect of one, they opt out, and that is their problem. Other countries are in favour of the social dimension.
  I sometimes think that Conservative Members cannot have read the social protocol.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith indicated assent.
  Mr. Radice: I am not sure whether I shall continue to carry the hon. Gentleman with me.
  What is so terrible about article 2.1, which states:
  "the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields:
  —improvement…of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety;
  —working conditions"?
  What is wrong with that? Are they against it? Are they against having more
  "information and consultation of workers"?
  Are they against more
  "equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work"?
  Are they against
  "the integration of persons excluded from the labour market"?
  They should tell their constituents if they are, because we did not hear anything about that during the general election.
  Conservative Members may be against those issues on which the Council will act unanimously, which are
  "social security and social protection of workers; protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers."
  Perhaps they are worried about them.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I are standing at the same time; let us hope that we will still be at the end of the Committee. Although many Conservative Members approve of the protections to which the hon. Gentleman just referred, we object to being told by Brussels how to provide them. The matters under consideration are much better dealt with locally, at the factory level, by management and trade unions or employees.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Radice: I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to say that the purpose of the social protocol is to establish minimum standards. It does not lay down how certain things should be done, or how far matters should go. It establishes minimum standards.
  The old canard is that that protocol will apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs, but those matters are specifically
  434
  excluded from it. It is about time that Conservative Members who talk so much about the protocol actually read it, because that would be very useful.
  Mrs. Currie: Someone in France who is trying to keep a business going and to employ people may want to reduce his work force when times are difficult, but he finds that it is almost impossible to make people redundant in such circumstances. What happens is that the entire business must close and everyone has to be made redundant. Many business men who are running small companies feel that that is one of the reasons that the French unemployment rate is much higher than our own. One of the reasons why we object to that rule and to such a minimum standard is that it does not improve working conditions but reduces the number of jobs available.
  Mr. Radice: I know that the hon. Lady has connections with France, but so do I, and I do not believe that the situation is as she describes. It is true that perhaps one or two employers complain about certain minimum conditions being imposed upon them, but those complaints are heard across Europe. If we are to have a decent Europe, we need to impose some minimum conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is we'?"] The European Community.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, within the European Parliament, the European People's party is in favour of the social chapter? That party includes many Conservative Members of the European Parliament. Apparently they are enthusiastic about the proposals, and they have expressed their views through the EPP.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinarily good point and his hon. Friends should dwell upon that, because they are the odd ones out. The Christian Democrats of Europe do not share Conservative Members' extraordinary view about what should happen.
  Mr. Wigley: I should not like any credence to be given to the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Therefore, it is important to draw attention to article 2(2) of the protocol, which states:
  "directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings."
  Mr. Radice: It is a pity that the hon. Lady was not listening, because that was a devastating riposte to her intervention, which I wish I had used. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to it.
  The second argument in favour of the social chapter is that of the level playing field, which was put extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The argument is simple: if one has a level playing field for goods, services and capital, one needs a single labour market with common employment conditions. It is about fair competition. The other European countries accept that, and they do not see why we should try to gain a competitive advantage in a morally repugnant manner.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the stated intention of some of the larger firms that, if it comes to lay-offs, they will lay people off in this country first—precisely for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South—because that is so much easier given our employment conditions?
  Mr. Radice: That is a telling point.
  The Government reject the argument for the social dimension—in practice if not in theory. They also reject the level playing field argument, because they have a particular model of the future Britain. They want it to be the sweatshop of Europe—the country and the economy that employs cheap labour and is unregulated. That argument was well put by Lord Ridley, who wants us to be the Hong Kong of Euurope. It would not be a good model to follow, because it is morally reprehensible and is doomed to failure. I do not believe that we would be able to compete by offering cheap labour in comparison with other countries. If we have a future, it is as a high-wage, high-tech, high-quality economy. That is the way in which we can compete. We would not be able to compete by adopting the model that has been put forward by those on the Conservative Benches—it is unattractive, and it is doomed to failure.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive case and it may be of interest to him, taking both sides of his argument, to know that one of the subsidiaries of one of the largest companies in this country has just closed a factory in Taiwan and reopened it in Manchester. I am rather in favour of repatriating jobs from abroad.
  Mr. Radice: So am I, but I do not know the circumstances of that decision. I should like to consider it more closely before deciding whether it proved the hon. Gentleman's case or mine.
  One or two Conservative Members argued powerfully that the opt-out may not prove to be watertight. As the hon. Member for Chingford sadi, the Maastricht treaty has reformed and amended the treaty of Rome and it could be used to introduce the elements of the social protocol. I know that that possibility has been denied by the Minister, but that serious point must be considered. In any case, the other countries will not allow us to continue to retain our advantage over them. It is no good thinking, therefore, that the existing social protocol, with our opt-out, will survive. When one has private conversations with Ministers, it is interesting to note that they share that view.
  Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way while still standing up, which he has done courageously. He is well known as a good European and a fair-minded parliamentarian. Without embarrasssing him, I should like to commend his excellent book on attitudes in Britain towards foreigners. It has done a great service to the Community, and I hope that more people will read it.
  The hon. Gentleman has sought to compare our attitude to the treaty with that of other countries. He also said that the hon. Member for Copeland made a good speech—that is his opinion, but I do not believe that it is shared by those on the Conservative Benches. Was he not shocked by the reaction of his hon. Friend, who represents the official Opposition, to the extremely important constitutional and technical point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister? He said that, if the Opposition amendment were carried tonight, it would not be possible for us to ratify the treaty. No Foreign Office Minister would say that unless he had been given expert constitutional advice from his officials at the Department.
  436
  In riposte to that point—and in anticipation thereof, almost—the shadow spokesman on foreign affairs made an astonishing assertion, about which I am still shocked —as, I am sure, is the hon. Gentleman, as a fair-minded person. The hon. Member for Copeland said that all the other member states—presumably he had consulted them officially through their Governments, because there would be no point consulting their opposition parties—would be quite happy with the procedure he had outlined of slipping back into the treaty, once the amendment had been passed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is totally impossible, impracticable, and unacceptable constitutionally? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that matter, which is just as important as all those flaccid assertions?
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman is trying to create an alibi for why he will not be voting with us. I know that the Government are trying to obtain support among possible doubters because they know that they are vulnerable on the amendment. I do not believe that it would be impossible to devise a mechanism to which we could quickly adhere, particularly as all the other countries are so enthusiastic for us to join the protocol, were it passed.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: In line with what I said earlier, if within the body of the treaty that is judiciable by the European Court of Justice, there are areas where the social provisions can be introduced because the intention of the majority of nations exists, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what others refer to as general language in titles II and III, can now be seen as specific and clear?
  Mr. Radice: I agree with that. Might that not be one way forward were the amendment to be carried? It might be one way in which the Commission and the other member states could move to ensure that we were able to adhere to the social protocol—I do not know. Given that everyone is in favour of it, I do not believe that it would be impossible to devise such a mechanism. The European Community is good at devising such mechanisms, provided that there is a consensus.
  Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Radice: Yes, but this must be the last time, as it is not fair to other hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I have tried to intervene several times.
  I refer to the level playing field that the hon. Gentleman described and his belief that, in one way or another, the rest of the Community will not allow us to get away with the treaty as it stands. The protocol is only a framework of objectives. It clearly states that directive regulations will have to follow from it. Some 13 months have already passed since the treaty was agreed and, in that time, the recession has deepened throughout the Community in different ways.
  The belief has become much stronger, not only among industry in many parts of the Community, but among politicians in the Community, that overweening social legislation in the labour market is counter-productive and that much of the protocol may never happen. By the time that the Commission brings forward the directives and regulations that it envisages, the attitude may have

  437
  hardened, so that many of the other 11 member states will then be saying that the protocol seemed a good idea at the time, but they do not want it now.
  Mr. Radice: I do not know whether that that will be the case. If it is, what is so terrifying about our amendment and the social protocol? As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it merely lays down some general principles. That is why some of the Conservative propaganda has been so incredibly exaggerated. The Government know perfectly well that the protocol sets down principles. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with Tory central office to tone it down.
  Mr. Paice: Has the hon. Gentleman ever tried to do that?
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I want to be absolutely clear about what the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has said. Am I right in thinking that he will be voting for amendment No. 27? I imagine that there are reasons why he may not wish to do so.
  Mr. Radice: Of course I shall vote for it. The hon. Gentleman is being ridiculous. [Interruption.] With great respect, Dame Janet—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: It strikes me that the hon. Gentleman is in order.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) made a foolish point—I know that it may be important to him. If we can persuade him to vote with us, I do not mind on what grounds he does so—I want him to vote with us.
  I shall give some advice to the pro-Maastricht Conservatives: if they wish the Bill to have a swift passage, they should vote for the social chapter. One of the unattractive parts of our political system is its divisive nature. There is a pro-Maastricht majority in the House of Commons, but the Conservative Government have prevented that majority from emerging because they have not been prepared to take the Opposition with them. That contrasts with what has happened in Federal Germany, where the Social Democratic party has been consulted by the Government, the Christian Democratic Union. SPD concerns about the treaty have been taken into account and brought together into a national consensus.
  That has not happened in this country. On the contrary, on almost every occasion the Conservative Government have been divisive and tried to gain party advantage out of the European issue. That was a great mistake, made to the detriment of this country. I appeal to some Conservative Members—who freely offer their advice to Labour Members—that if the Government will not take the action, it is up to the pro-European Conservatives. They also have responsibilities and if they are so keen on Europe, they should vote for the amendment—not tonight, but soon.
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the process of opposition and government. Is he attributing the frequency with which the Opposition change their mind on Europe to that process?
  Mr. Enright: The Minister is at it again.
  Mr. Radice: Exactly—the Government try to make party advantage. I am not trying to do so. It would be a refreshing change if, for once in the Committee, the Government did not try to make party advantage. Perhaps we should follow the example set by the anti-Europeans —at least they do not make advantage out of each other. The two sets of anti-Europeans get together. It might be a good idea if there was more consensus among those who support the Maastricht treaty.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech. I call Mr. George Walden.
  Mr. George Walden: I have to make a convoluted point. It will probably come out in a simple way, because when I try to make a simple point it comes out convoluted. My speech has to be convoluted because it was designed for yesterday's debate on culture, but I must mentally switch it into the context of the social chapter.
  The social chapter symbolises why the Maastricht treaty is misconceived. There is no escaping the fact that social legislation, as conceived in countries like France and Germany, is of a broadly corporate nature. I am not making a party political point, as I believe that the French, who have a completely different tradition from this country in matters of state, society and politics, have every right to that corporate tradition.
  The French have every right to take an entirely different approach to matters of culture, as we discussed yesterday. That approach is, broadly, from the top down. That is true of the social chapter, where everything is regulated among the workers, employers and state. That is fine by me. I certainly do not want to deprecate that country, partly because I love it, partly because what the French do is up to them, and partly because they have not been unsuccessful in many spheres. However, our tradition— and those of some other European countries—is not the same as the French tradition.
  I believe that I know not only where the social chapter of the Maastricht Bill originated but where other sections originated: in the fertile minds of some extremely intelligent, estimable, social democratic rather than socialist Frenchmen. They have every right to conceive of their Europe, but they have absolutely no right to thrust it on us. I draw a careful distinction between what can and does work in continental countries, with their distinct traditions, and what will not work in this country. Indeed, it is undesirable that it should work here, because it is not our way of thinking or the way that we do things, whether in social matters, in culture or in education.
  I am not demonising Mr. Delors, who I know and greatly respect. I used to discuss these matters with him in the 1970s. He and his then party—he was a social democrat, but moving to the socialists—had a vision of Europe. They were frank about it. They wanted a socialist France—a certain idea of France, as they put it—and to extend it to other countries. Socialist Spain and Italy were to be part of the Community, as was Britain, which at that time also had a socialist Government. It was a social democratic and socialist political vision.
  Mr. Radice: Of course the treaty is supported by social democrats and socialists throughout Europe, but we would be the first to say that it is not all our own work. It is rather absurd to suggest that the treaty comes entirely from the mind of Mr. Delors. There are other important forces in favour of the treaty, especially the Christian Democrats and the group to which the Conservative party in the European Parliament belongs. They support it because it is in their tradition.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I accept that I am dealing, of necessity, in generalities because we are discussing 12 different countries and many different cultures, which is the problem with the treaty. Geenerally speaking, the social chapter, as with so many other chapters—indeed, the whole treaty—is misconceived because it attempts to do the impossible and the undesirable.
  I shall give one concrete example of why it is impossible and to show my enormous flexibility of mind on this matter. The social chapter says that there should be worker representation. Who in their right mind could be against that? We could not possibly be against voluntary worker representation, agreed within the firm with the bosses. That is something that the Tories have successfully encouraged, escpecially in small firms. Rather than having things imposed by unions, people get together around a table and sort them out for themselves.
  That tradition has been alive and well in Germany for many years. It has functioned well and has helped the Germans. However, it has happened against an entirely different social and historical background from that which, unfortunately, prevails in Britain. Let us face it: we go back to the 18th century and class animosity. That is why I am strongly opposed to the imposition of worker representation within our antiquated union framework.
  Mrs. Currie: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made the point that he, like me, is opposed to the compulsory imposition of such rules. Does he accept that those wonderful labour relations laws in Germany have had one significant effect—that its unit manufacturing costs for similar products in similar businesses to those in the United Kingdom are twice as high there as they are here?
  Mr. Walden: I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point because it leads on naturally to another point, which I shall make later.
  This chapter of the treaty, like many others, pushes co-operation in Europe way beyond what is necessary or desirable. The end result will be to weaken Europe, and that is what really worries me about the Bill. Maastricht will impose impossible strains and confusions on Europe that will work against cohesion and co-operation and, in the longer term, give rise to the sort of nationalism to which we are all opposed.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) asked how anyone could be against improving the working environment. No one is. However, I invite him to meet a constituent of mine, Mr. Alf Baxendale of Cementone in Buckingham, and discuss with him the pile of papers that he has that tell him, for example, how many cans of paint his employees can lift at one go. If the Commission were given more powers in that area, there would be a great deal more of that sort of thing and the lives of Mr. Baxendale and many other employers, both small and large, would become impossible.
  Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend's assertion mean that he rejects the health and safety regulations, which are very strict on such matters, that are already either implicit in or built in to the treaty?
  Mr. Walden: No. I gave an example of how bureaucratic matters can get out of hand under existing legislation. I strongly believe, as do the Government, that they would become farcically out of hand if the social chapter was accepted and the Commission was thereby given even more scope to interfere in the affairs of Mr. Baxendale and other employers.
  I recognise the fact that the Government have opted out of the chapter. They may say that that therefore weakens my point about it being symbolic of a misconceived treaty, which is the way that I regard Maastricht, but there is a limit to how many chapters from which the Government can opt out. The Maastricht treaty is littered with parallel problems to those of the social chapter, culture, which we discussed last night, being one.
  We must not forget that it has been only during the last couple of years that we have decided, possibly wrongly, to have a Minister responsible for culture. Why? It is because we have a wholly different approach to culture from that of other countries. In France, the Culture Minister is one of the top Ministers, active across the board. That does not mean that that makes France worse than Britain. France has Beaubourg. I quite like Beaubourg and I quite like the way France does things, but I would not want to emulate it either in cultural or social matters. That is what is wrong with the treaty; it tries to homogenise all sorts of cultures —economic, cultural, social and so on. That cannot and should not be done—[interruption.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) gets carried away, I shall deal with her point and develop it.
  Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. When I was a Minister I negotiated several directives. I found that most of the countries were doing much the same thing at the same time. We agreed directives which did not thrust things down other people's throats but which involved harmonisation.
  Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people in the north of Italy who speak German will have homogeneity forced on them? Surely, whatever people's language or culture, they should have cultural rights as they move around Europe. That is the current problem in the former Yugoslavia, where people have not learnt to live with the different rights to religion, language and script within one large continent.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman has two problems —one of language and one of logic. If he can think of no better criticism than to say "rubbish", perhaps he should study the education section of the treaty.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that European Governments were doing all these things in parallel anyway. My whole point is that there is no need artificially to harmonise them and that it could be dangerous to do so. Most sensible things are already being done by broadly sensible countries under the impetus of their own social needs. Therefore, generally, the hon. Gentleman has been making my point.

  441
  8 pm
  I come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South—competition. While we are discussing the Bill, whether education or culture yesterday or the social chapter that will not go through because the Government will not accept it today, many things are happening in the world. We have Iraq, Bosnia and a new American President. All sorts of things are happening in the world, while we are wasting the time of the House and the Government, wasting the efforts of Europe and dissipating the international influence of Europe by this introverted, nit-picking nonsense that the treaty represents.
  While we are discussing the social chapter here and how, from the Opposition's point of view, we will put up and regulate the cost of British and European business even more thereby stifling competition, what, to choose but one example, is happening in southern China? Shanghai had a 20 per cent. growth rate last year. One may not like the regime—few of us do; I do not—but we will have to contend with what is going on there in a big way during the next few years.
  I talked to one business man recently who told me that he bought not complicated but good lathes from Shanghai for less than the price of the components in Britain. That is the sort of thing that we in Britain and Europe will have to face. Meanwhile, the Opposition and Europe are talking about ways to put even greater trammels on our industry and impede its competitiveness even more.
  Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should be putting our wage levels and human rights on a par with the southern Chinese? If so, I would deny absolutely everything that he said.
  Mr. Walden: What does one say to that sort of remark? It is so silly. I was trying to make a perfectly serious point. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I am in favour —my God, how boring and laborious this is—of British wages and working conditions being the same as those in Canton or Shanghai, guess what the answer is—no, I am not. Satisfied?
  I think that I have just about said everything that I wanted to say.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will have heard our right hon. Friend the Minister telling colleagues, "It doesn't matter. It isn't going to happen. Let's vote for it anyhow."
  Mr. Walden: I am perfectly serious when I say that the best thing that could happen for Britain and Europe would be for Maastricht not to happen. What concerns me, and where I sympathise strongly with the Government, is that I do not want any sort of overt clash with Europe, British isolation and all the rest of it. What I would like to see is the treaty run slowly and decorously into the sands.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will pardon me if I do not directly follow his argument—convoluted or otherwise, although in the end it came down, as he said at the beginning, to the simple proposition that we are different. It is a proposition which is often heard on the other side of the argument.
  It is said that we in Britain are different and unique and do not have the same social and economic culture, so things like Maastricht will not work. I do not agree with that, but I return to the social chapter, which has produced
  442
  as much confrontation between the two main parties as anything else in the Maastricht treaty. Labour has been consistently, firmly and solidly in favour of it, and the Conservatives have been equally consistently, firmly and solidly against it.
  In many ways, I rather agree with the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), who made what we would all agree was an excellent contribution. It seems that the confrontation is rather out of proportion, because the social chapter in the treaty of Rome—which, after all, is the basic treaty to which we adhered in 1973—is not that different from the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty. Much of it is exactly the same. Article 118 of the treaty of Rome clearly states that the Commission will have the task of promoting close co-operation in
  "—employment,
  —labour legislation and working conditions,
  —occupational and continuation training,
  —social security,
  —protection against occupational accidents and diseases,
  —the law as to trade unions, and collective bargaining"—
  and so on, and so on.
  That has been the position since 1973. In some respects, the Maastricht treaty limits the treaty of Rome in the social sphere. The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty states that it seeks
  "the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources".
  It also mentions the need to
  "take account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy."
  I find it difficult to understand what everyone is getting so worked up about. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quoted article 2, paragraph 2 of the Maastricht treaty which says:
  "the Council may adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation"—
  and so on. One finds pretty well the same stuff in the treaty of Rome. It says:
  "The Commission, on a proposal, may, acting by means of a qualified majority vote…minimum requirements for gradual limitation."
  All the stuff about equal pay for men and women is practically the same in the treaty of Rome as in the Maastricht treaty. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why there is such a noise about it. Quite apart from the plain arguments about right and wrong—to the hon. Member for Buckingham I would say that in politics simple arguments about right and wrong are often the most potent—
  Mr. Walden: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the simple answer to my argument is that he is right and I am wrong?
  Sir Russell Johnston: Yes.
  The Liberal Democrats position on the social chapter has been clear and sustained. In our manifesto at the last election, we stated:
  "We will renounce Britain's social chapter opt-out and argue for a more flexible framework of social policy across the Community. The EC should set down minimum standards of health and safety and employee rights, leaving national governments and enterprises to decide how to meet them."
  That, broadly, is what one finds in the social chapter.
  For Liberals, the Community must have a social dimension. We could not believe in anything other than a

  443
  Community which accepts the need to set down basic standards for workers' rights in the form of a social chapter, although there can always be legitimate debate about the precise nature of its content. It is a wide area within which there are bound to be disagreements about ways and means.
  At the end of the 20th century I find it extraordinary to listen to Conservative Members portraying social policy as a handicap. An hon. Lady who has just disappeared—I do not know her constituency, but certainly she does not believe in tailoring her dress to her political view, because she was attired in bright red—spoke, in a telling phrase of "shedding the shackles of social policy". Others said that the social policy would reduce our competitive capacity. That was the argument used by mine owners in the last century to justify sending little children down the mines.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would contain himself. Indeed, it would be greatly to the benefit of all hon. Members if he contained himself more often. Nevertheless, I will give way to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not too many times, please."] Unfortunately, I believe that one of the good things about the Chamber is the way in which hon. Members can interrupt each other, and the fact that hon. Members are not allowed to get away with saying certain things—although that creates risks for me sometimes.
  Before I give way to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), let me finish what I was saying. It is extraordinary that we should consider ourselves so different—perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "so backward"—that we cannot contemplate introducing the same protections and conditions for workers as France, Germany the Netherlands or any other Community country. I consider that nonsense.
  Mr. Cash: I was intrigued—especially in view of the hon. Gentleman's party's historical background—to hear him refer to workers' conditions, and to the days of child slave labour. Disraeli laid enormous emphasis on the requirement for proper social conditions: that was one of the key factors that led to his great Administration, and the One Nation group in the Conservative party has always taken him as its mentor. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a respectable Conservative tradition that runs in the same direction as his argument?
  Sir Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are respectable Conservatives as well as non-respectable Conservatives, I agree. Many Conservative Members—unlike the hon. Gentleman— support the Maastricht treaty; many Conservative Members of the European Parliament support the social chapter, and the whole concept of social cohesion in the Community. One feature of the Conservative party is that much of its policy can be ordered a la carte. I suppose that that has certain advantages.
  Both the hon. Member for Copeland and the Minister of State, in several interventions, raised the possible effect of removing the protocol on social policy on ratification. That is relevant to amendment No. 27. I must be frank: although I do not think that it will create any dilemma for us, there is no point in pretending that that is not a possibility, and I therefore feel that it should be addressed directly.
  444
  From the outset, the Liberal Democrats have made their reservations about the Maastricht treaty well known. It is not perfect; it does not advance the Community in the federal direction that I favour. Nevertheless, we believe that the treaty must be ratified. Its rejection would strike a severe blow at both European integration and the overall stability of the continent. It was for that reason that, amid much criticism, we voted with the Government during the paving debate.
  I shall not rehearse the details of our argument; basically, we acted as we did because we believed that it was necessary to progress to consideration of the Bill. Although it is true that the Government were busy using that debate as the means for a vote of confidence for their supporters—and, to an extent, the Opposition—the fact is that, had they lost, they would have engineered a genuine vote of confidence the following day and, with the support of the Euro-sceptics, they would have remained in office.
  Our priority, now as then, is not to keep the Government in office—pleasant and amiable though the present Minister may be—but to bring about genuine progress towards the earliest possible ratification of the treaty. I see no reason for us to change that stance. Like the hon. Member for Copeland, we have taken legal advice on the impact of cancelling the United Kingdom's opt-out from the social chapter on the other 1 I member states and the Community's procedures. The advice that we have received from our partner Liberal Democratic parties in other European countries, and in the European Parliament, suggests a consistency of legal opinion across a number of countries which is at variance with the views expressed by the Government—and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in various interventions.
  8.15 pm
  Our advice suggests that, while such a cancellation would theoretically require a new intergovernmental conference, might theoretically require re-ratifications and —in the event of an intergovernmental conference—might result in other member states' calling for additional changes to the treaty, making that the excuse that would lead to, as it were, a bleeding of the accord, such a consequence seems most unlikely. All the other member states have accepted the social chapter, and a decision by Britain to adhere to it would present them with no political problems. After all, they have already tried very hard to persuade us to do so.
  There is a precedent. In 1972, when Norway decided not to join the Community, the text of the Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the treaty had to be modified. Theoretically, that required an intergovernmental conference; in practice, however, it was implemented by a simple Council decision—an ordinary Community legal instrument, binding in its entirety on those to whom it was addressed.
  The problem is here, in this country. It lies in the Government's well set out but inflexible position—I do not suggest that they have deceived anyone—and the way in which a defeat of the United Kingdom opt-out would affect them. Such a defeat certainly seems possible, even likely. It does not require a high standard of numeracy to work out that, if Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined with the nationalist parties—and probably the Irish the Government's fate would rest on the decision of the dissident group within the Conservative party: the

  445
  Euro-sceptics. Although in the past—and, indeed, during this Committee stage—many of them have been extremely vocal in their condemnation of the social chapter, their priority is clearly the defeat of the Bill, and I am sure that they would not hesitate to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
  The Euro-sceptics would vote for the social chapter not because they support it, but in the belief that it would provide a means of preventing the treaty's ratification. But would it? That is the central question. If I were persuaded that ratification would be impossible if the protocol on social policy were removed, it would not be inconsistent for me to vote against amendment No. 27—no more inconsistent than our support on Second Reading for the Bill minus the social chapter, or our support for the Government in regard to the paving motion. If the United Kingdom does not ratify the treaty, it will collapse, and with it the new social chapter. As I have said, however, I do not believe that we are facing that possibility yet.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as, indeed, is the whole House. It will not surprise him to learn that I consider it unlikely that any Conservative Member would find it possible to support the social protocol; that, however, is a matter for my hon. Friends.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the social protocol is an integral part of the treaty of Rome. We shall be party to that protocol even if the arrangements of the 11, which are attached to it, do not apply to the United Kingdom. It follows that if the amendment were carried, United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the treaty so we could not ratify it. Thereafter, an intergovernmental conference would have to take place.
  The hon. Gentleman may not have been present when I mentioned this before, but when the Irish Government were confronted with a technical point on a protocol relating entirely to abortion—one which did not affect any other member state's ability to ratify—they were denied the opportunity of a 30-second intergovernmental conference to make that amendment, because other member states feared the consequences for the future of the treaty if a new intergovernmental conference were held.
  It is true that under article 236 of the treaty of Rome, once an intergovernmental conference has taken place to amend the treaty, the amendment
  "shall enter into force after being ratified by all Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules."
  Whatever disagreements we may have about the direction in which we wish the European Community to go, I think that there will be common ground between me and the Liberal Democrats we should not wish to subject the Community again to the six months through which the Community has recently lived—the Danish and French referendums and other demarches. Therefore, I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that he will continue to reflect on these issues.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I have nothing to add, but my only comment on what the Minister said is that the advice we have thus far been given does not accord with what he said. However, I shall consider it carefully.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Where does the hon. Gentleman's party stand—will it vote for or against amendment No. 27?
  Sir Russell Johnston: I have just told the Committee, and there is no point in repeating myself. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak to the Committee.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I apologise for having been absent for an hour—I was in Committee Room 19 addressing a European teach-in for the Bermondsey Conservative Association. That explains my absence, although I have been here for the rest of the debates.
  Not for the first time, the Minister of State has put us in a difficult position. We know that he is a difficult person, but people like me, who are worried about the implications of the Maastricht treaty and horrified about the decision not to allow the people to have their say, were astonished to hear the Minister say at the beginning that if this amendment, proposed by the Labour party, was to be accepted, it would not be possible for the Government to ratify the treaty. That leaves us in a difficult position.
  Until I heard this debate, I was inclined to abstain in the vote, because all the nonsense about the social chapter and the great debates between our two parties are basically bogus. Conservative Members are telling their constituents that, if the social chapter is accepted, the red brigade will take over, trade union laws will be changed and we shall again have a red revolution in the United Kingdom. However, Labour hon. Members are saying that, if we do not have a social chapter, British workers will continue to be ground into the dust by the nasty employers because we shall not have the right to protect them.
  I appreciate that, although those words were not used in the excellent speech of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, in Essex Labour supporters have been saying that openly, even in places such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). Such views have, to some extent, been reflected in today's debate.
  It was made abundantly clear in two excellent speeches by two of my younger hon. Friends—one of whom was the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—that the debate is based on bogus rubbish. It is clear that a huge amount of legislation relating to social affairs has already been passed. If hon. Members were wise enough to go to the Library, they would find a long list of trade union legislation and legislation on the rights of people which has already been passed.
  For example, under the social action programme of the European Community, as of 1 May 1992, of the 50 proposals contained in the programme, 38 have been published and, of those, 21 had been agreed. They relate to a wide range of matters affecting the rights of people, the rights of women and opportunities for employment.
  Let us consider the astonishing 48-hour week directive. Baroness Thatcher must be appalled that part of the Single European Act for which she fought so hard—I voted against it because I was doubtful about it—is being used to promote that directive. As some hon. Members may know, yesterday I asked the Minister of State, Department of Employment what we are going to do about it because it is being implemented under the, health and safety conventions of the Single European Act. I was told that, if the directive remained unchanged, the Government would consider going to the European Court. Most of it has already been discussed and agreed, including the remarkable paragraph which states that French bakers should be exempt from the 48-hour week but that British

  447
  bakers should not. When I inquired why that had been agreed, I was told that it was part of the bargaining process.
  Two facts have emerged. First, it is almost certain that the 48-hour week directive would be supported by the European Court if the Government were to challenge it —that does not seem to be in doubt—and we are bargaining like mad to get something which is broadly acceptable. Therefore, if the Minister considers it absolutely terrible and frightful, he should think again, because most of it will happen anyway.
  The Minister may ask why, if that is so, did anyone bother to include that particular protocol? The reason why the social chapter was wanted was basically one of presentation. The European Community is constantly increasing its power. The court, the Commission and some of the members who do not scrutinise measures adequately are adding to its powers all the time. The sad fact is that today we have not heard one example of the type of legislation which might be introduced under the social chapter but could not be introduced under existing legislation. Therefore, the whole argument is bogus. It will not make a great difference whether we have a social charter.
  I wish that hon. Members would have the courage to face what is happening. We must remember that articles 2 and 3 of the treaty will add enormously to the legislation on which the European Court can rule as being relevant for the European Community. We should also not forget the possibility that the exclusion of the United Kingdom might cause problems in fair trading across frontiers. Some of the legal people whom I have consulted and who have written me letters have said that a case could be made for saying that we are in breach of that aspect of the treaty. However, that is pretty irrelevant.
  Whether or not we have a social charter will make precious little difference. The social charter excludes many areas of activity about which particular concern has been expressed. If Conservative hon. Members are doubtful about the dangers of current legislation, they should consider the details of the 48-hour week directive, which is horrifying.
  There is always the possibility—although I would not suggest that it might be true—that the Minister of State is wrong in saying that, if we have a social chapter and get rid of the protocol, we must therefore scrap the treaty. I do not say that because he is in the habit of being wrong, but Ministers can sometimes be badly advised when they have to give urgent advice. However, if what he said is correct, we would have another opportunity to consider the issue. If the amendment were passed, we still have Report stage during which issues can be reviewed.
  The Minister should be aware that there is a large groundswell of opinion in the Conservative party—it has been supported by two excellent speeches tonight—to the effect that, sadly, the process has been going through, is going through and will continue to go through under previous legislation. The social chapter will make precious little difference.
  8.30 pm
  However, tonight hon. Members will have to vote on whether we want to promote the ratification of Maastricht. I would love there to be a referendum for the people—but
  448
  I know that if I so much as mention the word I shall be told that I cannot talk about that because it will be discussed later.
  As the Minister of State has said clearly and precisely that if the social chapter is included we cannot ratify the treaty, hon. Members will appreciate that that is what we shall be voting on tonight. Having made that idea abundantly clear, the Minister of State may want to say now that it is not as simple as that. The Government may wish to say that, because of the uncertainty, there may be a case for allowing the people of Britain to make up their minds for themselves. As always, the Minister of State endeavours to be helpful to all hon. Members. He tries to put facts clearly and precisely before them, but he should be aware that although it is nice and pleasant when he makes the position so clear, in doing so he has created problems in the minds of hon. Members such as myself.
  I do not want to give additional powers—
  Mr. George Robertson: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) agonising. Over the years I have heard him agonising quite a lot. What he is saying is interesting and valuable to the House, but may I make it clear that, because of the rules of order, we shall not vote this evening on the crucial issue over which, rightly, he is apprehensive. We shall reach the vote on amendment No. 27 at a much later stage. However, I endorse the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions, and welcome his support, if such support is possible, for amendment No. 27.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: That is the problem. I appreciate that we shall not vote on amendment No. 27 tonight. We are all aware of that; we try to follow matters—although I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. But how does that help us? It will make it more difficult. We shall have to talk to more people. We shall have to talk to our constituents and tell them that we are in an impossible position. We have voted against giving extra power to the EC—and extra cash, too. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is well aware, the proposals concerned involve giving more cash to Europe—more European expenditure. In my view, that is wasted money and jobs in Britain will be destroyed.
  All the examples that we have seen of the EC spending money—the common agricultural policy, among other things—have destroyed jobs and wasted money. It would be infinitely better if all the EC expenditure plans, subsidies, seminars and all those great conferences which Foreign Office officials attend, were abolished, and instead we sent aeroplanes to Europe to drop £10 notes at random. The money would be far more effectively directed than it is now.
  I do not want the EC to take control of educational and cultural policy, as it does now. I am happy to be a Conservative and to say that the EC wastes money on fraudulent schemes.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: To help my hon. Friend to develop the argument whether, if the amendment were passed, it would destroy the process of ratifying Maastricht—that is an important concept to establish—may I add that the protocol would simply allow the other 11 countries which signed it to use the administration of the EC after Maastricht is ratified to put those arrangements into effect? If that connection were broken, the process of ratification must come to a halt. There would then have to

  449
  be an immediate intergovernmental conference, because the whole set-up would have to be reconfigured and pushed back out for ratification. That is quite clear; most legal minds would come to that conclusion.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I had been doubtful about what the Minister of State said—not because I doubt him as a person, but because the Foreign Office sometimes says things and then has to revise them. But my hon. Friend's support removes that doubt and that makes my problem even greater.
  Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen may laugh at what I say, and they may attribute my actions to all kinds of causes. But I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose from all this. I am a chap who has been here a long time and I have no ambitions. But I have seen more misery, unemployment, and horror in Southend on Sea over the past year than I have ever seen in my life—and I have spent most of my time in this place representing a Scottish constituency. Things are terrible. When I think of the money wasted on the EC, on fraud, and on forcing up food prices artificially; when I think of the horrors of the EC's loss of trade throughout the world, and the way in which step by step it is ceasing to compete in the world; when I think of the growing unemployment, I want to stop more money and more power going to the EC.
  As has rightly been said, we have listened to the arguments year after year. In fairness I must say that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is one of the most conscientious Members of the House. He is always here—and he, too, has heard time and again people saying, "Perhaps things are not right. Just give the EC a bit more power. Let them sit round a table and allow them to control things, and somehow things will get better." Instead, things got worse and worse and worse.
  Our trade with Europe is getting worse, and the amount that we pay into Europe is growing. The burdens on the poor people of Britain are getting infinitely worse. We must remember that the people who suffer from all this are not Members of Parliament, who have decent salaries and sometimes other incomes, too, but the poor people. It is they who are losing their jobs and cannot get them back. They are paying an extra £17.50 a week for their food, and the £4 membership fee. All this matters a great deal to them.
  When the Government introduced the Maastricht treaty, I said, "No, this is wrong—wrong for Southend and wrong for Britain." All kinds of terrible pressures were put upon us, but I said no. I could not care less what they do —I shall vote against Maastricht because it is wrong.
  I think that the amendment is bogus nonsense. I do not believe that the social chapter will make any great difference. But then the Minister, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), who clarified the situation, says that if the amendment is accepted the treaty cannot be ratified. The treaty will be gone; it will be finished and they will have to start again. That gives me hope and expectation. I am delighted that, because of the rules of order, we shall not vote on the amendment tonight, and I hope that all hon. Members will think carefully about how to vote when the occasion arises. They will not be voting simply on the social chapter or the protocol; they will be voting whether they want to ratify the treaty.
  450
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North made a brilliant speech earlier today, in which he made his position absolutely clear. What he said clarified again the fact that we are dealing with something terribly important and significant. We shall vote on whether we ratify Maastricht.
  Fortunately, there are several days, perhaps even several weeks, before we have to make the decision, but I hope that hon. Members will appreciate what they are voting about. We shall not be voting for the nonsense of party propaganda; we shall not vote for those silly Tories who say that red revolution will come from the social chapter; we shall not vote for stupid socialists who say that without the social chapter the employers will take over and screw down the workers. We shall be voting on the ratification of Maastricht. In those circumstances, I hope that all hon. Members will think most carefully and prudently before deciding how to cast their votes.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I should like to address the industrial aspects of amendment No. 7.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has made a point that is quite different from those made by most other Conservative Members. Most Tory Members have said that the reason for opting out of the social dimension is to protect British industry from the so-called burdens of the social chapter. Another argument has also been used: that if we were to increase the costs of industry, inward investment would probably be curtailed. I think that both those arguments are wrong, and my opinion in that regard is based on my own 25 years' experience in industry and commerce before I became a Member of Parliament. Matters are far more complex than these arguments suggest.
  There is also the political dimension, which, in reality, has been excluded for the purpose of holding parts of the Conservative party together during the passage of the Bill. In other words, at the back of all this there is a cosmetic exercise.
  The history of the Government's policy for industry, shows that it has been absolutely disastrous. The capacity of British industry has been reduced drastically, and the development of high-tech industries in particular has been impaired by lack of Government help. Investment in manufacturing industry in this country has been very poor, leaving it not only reduced in size but also in many cases out of date. The monetarist views that we had during the 1980s were based on the argument that the return from investment in British industry would be pretty low—3 or 4 per cent.—whereas in other sectors of the economy the return would be far greater. Thus, British industry was largely neglected.
  There is no point in Conservative Members' thinking that, if we get an opt-out built into the legislation, nothing else will be needed for British industry. That is wrong. The package that we need is a complex one, but it certainly includes investment incentives. We need a well trained work force, we need people in the right places at the right time, and we need demand in the economy. There is a shortage of good policies for industry.
  A good social policy for industry can result in greater profitability. The notion that simple reduction of costs is the only route to profitability is quite often fallacious. Much depends on what sort of industry one is in.
  A few days ago, I had a meeting with a number of

  451
  directors of BP. Many of the things that the social contract refers to are already done by such companies. They say, "What on earth are Members of Parliament talking about? These practices already exist in most modern, profitable, efficient industries." The assumption—it is one that has been made many times today—is that, on aggregate, low labour costs result in greater profits. That is a highly questionable assumption.
  Let us take the high-tech industries. What one needs in the case of computers, information technology networks, and so on—value-added industries that can be highly profitable—is good working conditions and a work force who are well educated and well trained. In addition, there is a need for excellent management so that investment will be sensible and will yield good results. It is absurd to suggest that people working in industry should be screwed down by poor conditions. I suppose one could argue that in some cases—low-tech or no-tech industries—keeping workers in appalling conditions might work. But that is not where Britain ought to go. I want to see development in the high-tech area, which will lead to far greater prosperity and to reversal of the decline that we have had for so many years.
  The European market is one of the most sophisticated, and certainly, with 350 million people, the largest in the world, and it provides extraordinary opportunity for Britain. It is nothing short of absurd to argue that the social conditions under which people so crucial to the well-being of the country are employed should be impaired.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: Surely the argument concerning the social chapter is about why the Opposition seek to have some other organisation bring in elements of what they want, as they no longer believe that they themselves are capable of doing so, whereas Conservative Members believe that it is for us to take those decisions.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Randall: I do not think that that is the question at all. Our future is unquestionably in Europe. Industry, particularly some high-tech industries with very high development costs, including the costs involved in putting out new products, tends to cross national boundaries to a large extent. However, most jobs will be created not in the bigger industries but in the smaller and medium-sized industries. Article 2(2) refers to the directives that will be necessary to implement these social policies:
  "Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings."
  That makes sense; I can live with it.
  Mr. John Biffen: Does the hon. Gentleman think that social spending in this country would be higher under the social chapter than it would be if these matters were left to ourselves?
  Mr. Randall: I am not sure. The question is whether, if there were higher costs, investment would be profitable. What I am saying is that investment in the types of industry in which Britain desperately needs to be involved in the future could be good. As I cannot assess the scale, I cannot give a definite answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  There is, for instance, the question of existing practices.
  452
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made the point that many of these things are under way in any case. I am not fearful of improving the conditions and the productivity of people. Essentially that is what we are on about. We want British industry to be productive. Undertakings that are productive can compete in the value-added areas that, in turn, will create great prosperity.
  Earlier there was a reference to China. I was in China a couple of months ago. In the area north of Hong Kong —in fact, throughout China—the aggregate growth rate of that great country is about 16 per cent. Indeed, down in the Hong Kong area it is about 20 per cent. There is no inflation, and there is no great debt. In addition, there is political stability, despite Tiananmen square and all that. But we shall not be competing with those people. As the average wage there is about £1,000 a year, it would be impossible for us to do so. That is out of the question. Our niche is in the high-tech areas where worker conditions, including training, must be enhanced.
  I want to say something about inward investment. Today we have heard the phoney argument that businesses —for example, from Taiwan—that want to invest in this country are willing to come only because wages are very low. I do not believe that to be the case. A business will invest in Britain if it can do so profitably. What will determine profitability is the kind of work force that is available, as well as opportunities to market products in this country and throughout the Community. The idea that imposing a social dimension on British industry will result in inward investment plunging is nothing short of absurd.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I was amazed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago. He said that, because cost levels in the far east market were driven by the low wage levels there, western Europe and Britain in particular could give up competing with the far east. He implied that we should therefore set up walls round Europe and that we should just dabble around within them. That is the hon. Gentleman's logic, which is the logic of the social provisions. That makes no sense. We are a world trading nation and we should continue to be so.
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to draw that conclusion from what I said. I was talking about low-tech or no-tech areas such as textiles—making T-shirts or lace tablecloths—in which there is terrific labour intensity. One can buy such goods in China which are nothing short of exquisite. If we tried to make similar products in a British factory, we could not compete. I do not believe we should focus our attention on such areas.
  I regret that during the 1980s, especially when Lord Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a lot of talk about us being, not high-tech or low-tech, but no-tech. We were attempting to compete in that area, which was not what we should have been doing. In that area, one is competing against countries where the wage costs may be one tenth of what they are in this country. It is absurd to contemplate that.
  What we should do is co-operate with such countries in joint ventures and work with them on high-technology projects. That is how things work in practice. I will not

  453
  pursue that point in greater depth. I hope that I have undermined the two key points made this evening by Conservative Members.
  For the United Kingdom to opt out from the protocol, as amendment No. 127 would require, is wrong. All the elements of the policy are described on page 118 of the treaty, so I shall not attempt to summarise them. Any good business man would naturally and obviously want to implement those elements in practice. Improved working conditions and dialogue between management and labour are essential. If business people are not doing that these days, heaven forbid—they are dinosaurs and do not deserve to succeed. There is a two-way street involving the attitude of the work force as well as the attitude of management. Article 2.2 involves the gradual implementation of all the provisions. The implementation will not be carried out in a way that will inhibit business.
  The Government's track record on industry is absolutely appalling. We have heard comments about the abolition of the wages councils. We are the odd ones out in Europe in terms of the implementation of this element of policy, and I regret that very much. I wish that we could all vote for that element of policy when we divide on amendment No. 127. That would be for the well-being of this country, for the well-being of our industrial base, for the well-being of the people and for prosperity in the future.
  Mr. Cash: I was somewhat puzzled by some of the remarks made by the Minister of State about the implications of the matters we are discussing in the context of ratification of the treaty. In considering the nature of the opt-out purportedly given to the Danish Government and people, it struck me that enormous emphasis was given to ensuring that a system is devised by way of the so-called "informal" decision which would preclude the necessity for ratification. I mentioned earlier that Chancellor Kohl had made that very point. Apparently it has been claimed that ratification would not be required.
  The provisions deal with economic and monetary union, among other things, which are most firmly within the aegis of the Court of Justice and appear prima facie to affect the treaty of Rome. There is a serious question—I put it at that level at the moment—about the nature of the distinction made by the Minister of State on the question of ratification vis-a-vis the social chapter on the one hand and the questions I am raising vis-a-vis the Danish so-called "opt-outs" and the issue of ratification as respects the treaty of Rome on the other.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: It is perfectly clear, not just from the legal advice from the Council secretariat but from the legal advice of the Foreign Ministries of every other member state that the Danish decision is such that it will not require re-ratification. The decision that must be made by Conservative Members has nothing to do with ratification. The decision that must be made is clear.
  The social protocol, in a sense, enshrines everything that the Conservative party has fought against and won over the past decade. That is why the Opposition seek to import it into the treaty. The decision for Conservative Members is nothing to do with whether this amendment affects ratification. That is a matter for Opposition
  454
  Members who claim to be in favour of ratification of Maastricht. Our decision is simple. I think I had better leave it at that.
  Mr. Cash: That may be as well. Some of us believe that there are profound and deep strains—indeed rich seams —of socialism which run through the Maastricht treaty. The cohesion funds are one example. I know that my right hon. Friend fought hard to keep them out— [Interruption.] He did not try to keep them out. He was obviously encouraging member states to keep them in. None the less, such arrangements are deeply socialist. There are many other aspects of the treaty which correspond to the social engineering to which my right hon. Friend referred just now and which we have been opposing for so long.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right in one sense —we have had this debate across the Floor of the House on several occasions. Each political party represented here would seek to use the treaty to pursue the same political ends that it seeks to pursue in the United Kingdom. Of course Opposition Members would seek to use it as an instrument for socialism; we seek to use it as an instrument for advancing the policies of the free and open market. As regards this narrow amendment, however—my hon. Friend and all of us on this side of the House must speak for ourselves—it would be extremely difficult for any Conservative Member to justify, in relation to our own party and to the basis on which we have conducted ourselves for the past decade, supporting the amendment moved by the Labour party.
  Mr. Cash: I am simply making the point that I made just now about the European People's party, into which our own Conservative MEPs are subsumed by the agreement made on 11 April 1991, with the chairman of the Conservative party writing to Wilfried Martens, requesting membership, and clearly stating that the request for the incorporation of Conservative MEPs within the membership of the European People's party had the full support of the Prime Minister, no less; it could bear some examination in this context. As I understand it—I am open to correction—the European People's party, so closely related to Egon Klepsch and all these worthy Christian Democrats—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I had hoped to have an evening when I would not have to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but what he is saying has very little to do with the social fund or the amendment before us.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister of State was making a point about the question of our party—
  The Chairman: Order. The Minister of State was replying to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cash: The question of what this particular provision does in respect of the political decisions that we make on the Government side of the House can be put very simply. That is what we are talking about. The European People's party has this view. It is a view shared by the Christian Democrats. I recall a conversation in June or July 1990 with an eminent Conservative who told me that, in the context of matters of this kind, it would be as well for people such as myself to understand that we lived somewhat in the past, that what we required now was a

  455
  grey man's Europe, something administrative that we could just deliver, and that this would be in the interests of everyone in the United Kingdom. I remember that conversation very well. Perhaps the Minister of State remembers it too.
  9 pm
  Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend has given us the view of Mr. Egon Klepsch and the European People's party, but he will agree with me, will he not, that there is no doubt about the view of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom in this matter?
  Mr. Cash: Without a shadow of doubt, so far as we are tied into the European People's party, as we are, it presents serious questions about the extent to which one can serve two masters.
  Mr. Biffen: If my hon. Friend is going to conduct this valuable task of evaluating the range of opposition to and support for the social chapter, one should put on record the fact that in this Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has regretted that the Government have not signed up for the social chapter.
  Mr. Cash: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend for reminding me of that extremely important statement, and I am delighted to know that it is now well and truly on the record, because it tells us a great deal about what is going on.
  Mr. Jenkin: Am I not right in saying that the National Union of the Conservative Party, or some other Conservative party body, accepts as an appointee a representative of the European People's party, which is committed to a federal Europe?
  Mr. Cash: Yes, and that body is very determined to see a federal constitution brought in.
  I want to get back to amendment No. 27. It would be misleading to describe this protocol as an opt-out for the United Kingdom from the social chapter. The whole thing works differently, because the social chapter is not part of the Maastricht treaty; instead, it is a separate agreement between the other 11 member states. In fact, the United Kingdom is not actually a party to it, and deletion of the protocol would not make the United Kingdom a party to it.
  The effect of the protocol is simply to allow the other 11, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) pointed out in an intervention, to make use of the Community institutions for administering their social agreement. The effect of the protocol is therefore that the 11 would no longer have permission to use the Community institutions for the administration of their social agreement.
  There are further and wider effects of carrying the amendment. I see the Minister of State shaking his head, but—before another distinguished lawyer tries to develop an argument in an intervention—I am sure that he will appreciate that many of these matters depend on interpretation. Indeed, the extent to which the provisions of the social charter as they apply to the other 11 and the relationship of those provisions in law to what we have already acceded to under article 118a and so on of the Single European Act needs to be considered in this
  456
  context. For example, the 48-hour working week has already reappeared in another guise, notwithstanding the fact that it is supposed to be a part of the social chapter.
  I have asked Ministers, not over the past few weeks but repeatedly, even when the process was being negotiated, why we did not get these matters sorted out by amending and improving the Single European Act, as I have said with respect to many other provisions in the Maastricht treaty, in advance of the conclusions that were arrived at which have led to the difficulties that I see the Minister of State and the Government suffering from in respect of the social chapter.
  Had we, for example, given ourselves the power by negotiation, or at least sought to give ourselves the power, to challenge what are blatantly ultra vires arrangements in respect of provisions in the Single European Act by procedural means such as an action for a declaration—I have repeatedly put this to Ministers—we could have avoided all the difficulties of subsequent interpretation when everything has been sewn up. We could end up with only a hope that we might be able to manage to get a little bit of a concession out of the argument at the end of the day. By the use of the existing powers, but without the opportunity to challenge them in the courts, we are put in an impossible position. That is effectively where we stand in this matter.
  If article 118a within the Single European Act is used, in respect not merely of the 48-hour working week but of a range of other matters, we will find precious little difference between what is contained in the extended use of the existing legislative base and what is in the social chapter, anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford has already made that point.
  If the amendment were agreed, the other 11 member states would no longer have permission to use the Community institutions to administer their social agreement. They would need to amend that agreement to set up their own institutions separate from the Community institutions, and the Maastricht treaty would almost certainly need to go back to an intergovernmental conference.
  Much of the enthusiasm that I have heard from Conservative Members and, to some extent, from Opposition Members has come from that group of Members of Parliament who believe in what I generally describe as Disraelian politics. I have always been a great devotee of Disraelian politics. I have always believed in the social dimension. Indeed, even in the early 1960s I belonged to an organisation that was almost entirely devoted to the memory of Disraeli, for a very good reason.
  There is nothing incongruous in having policies that are a mixture of some of the liberal policies of the late 19th century—the desire of people such as Bright to ensure that people in factories had proper conditions, and Disraeli's determination to improve the lot of trade unionists and people working in deprived circumstances in factories. In fact, Bright and Disraeli worked out a relationship— effectively a coalition—to ensure that the Reform Act 1867 went through. That Act gave us our democracy, and it is being undermined by the treaty. I profoundly believe that provisions of the sort in the social chapter have a resonance for those in the Conservative party and the One Nation group.
  Mr. Wells: Can my hon. Friend explain the result of his arguments tonight? As I understand it, he said that article

  457
  118a, which was agreed in the Single European Act, will introduce a large measure of legislation of the sort that he anticipates under the social protocol dealing with the social chapter.
  Is my hon. Friend arguing that we should include the social chapter in the current treaty because we will get it under article 118a or that we should embrace what our negotiators in Maastricht tried to do, which was to exclude the social chapter, so that we can put a stop to the events under article 118a which my hon. Friend and I resent?
  Mr. Cash: I simply say that the provision, as with so many other provisions in the treaty, is like looking in a hall of mirrors. It relates to interpretation, assertion and whatever appears to be the sort of gearing and spin that people want to put on it at a given time. I am left with the severest doubts about the arguments that have been presented on the subject over time. I remain as doubtful about those arguments as I could be about anything.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will remember clearly that, when the Single European Act was going through this Parliament, we were given reassurances about matters that would not be affected by that Act and the advantages of it to the United Kingdom. Sadly, experience has shown, as it did with the 1972 proposals, that the outcome is different from what we were told in debates. That is why we are cynical today.
  Mr. Cash: We have the continual problem of the shifting sands of argument and interpretation on these matters. I conclude simply by saying that one constantly finds that the arguments are distorted by the hall of mirrors, just as I find with the provisions of the treaty.
  The same sort of confusion and uncertainty are created by our finding that the argument is put forward based on a good interpretation of the provisions in the social chapter by Ministers for the purposes of the United Kingdom, the Conservative party and its representatives in Parliament. The people whom I strongly supported when I was campaigning in the European elections in 1987 and who have joined the European People's party, adopt completely different positions. One cannot serve two masters. That is the point on which I am happy to conclude.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Noon: The first thing that needs to be said about the social chapter is that it contains nothing new in principle. Sometimes, when one hears Conservative Ministers talking about the social chapter, one would think that it contained agreements dreamed up by the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress over beer and sandwiches. But the European Community has always had a social dimension. That social dimension was clearly set out in the treaty of Rome. The Community has always sought to balance the centralising tendencies of the single market by protecting the interests of individuals directly affected by it.
  Therefore, it is not surprising as we debate the social chapter today that the European Community, as it moves steadily towards the completion of the single market, should seek to strengthen the social dimension. I am almost tempted to say that such a process is historically inevitable, but I suspect that I had better not.
  458
  I assume that the Government agree with articles 117 to 122 of the treaty of Rome. They contain a series of social provisions. Article 117 says:
  "Member States hereby agree upon the necessity to promote improvement of the living and working conditions of labour."
  Article 118 calls for close co-operation in employment, labour law and working conditions. That also includes vocational training, social security, prevention of occupational accidents and diseases, occupational hygiene, the right of association and collective bargaining between employers and workers. That is all in the treaty of Rome. It is not a bad summary of what can be found if one looks at the detail of the social chapter. It has all been decided and agreed before by Conservative Ministers.
  Even as recently as in the Single European Act, the Government accepted the competence of the European Community to introduce new European legislation dealing specifically with social issues. For example, article 118A of the Single European Act deals with new legislation on health and safety. Once again, the Government were happy and comfortable in approving European Community competence on social matters.
  A fundamental misunderstanding by the Government of the implication of the Single European Act has got them into their present difficulty with the social chapter. The Government failed to appreciate how close was the connection between the creation of a single market and the consequential social protection that every other European country sees as the inevitable consequence of that single market.
  Article 100A of the Single European Act was deliberately drafted to cover
  "the establishment and functioning of the internal market."
  That is not only the rules required to create a single market, but the consequences of that single market. In the context of the social chapter, it means the consequences for people. The social chapter simply sets out in more detail the consequences of that single market as it affects individuals throughout the European Community.
  It was perhaps only when the Government woke up to those consequences and to what they had agreed in the Single European Act that Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, started being difficult. When the Heads of Government signed the Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers in December 1989, only the United Kingdom Government found it impossible to accept a list of fundamental rights affecting freedom of movement—something to which the Government had already agreed by accepting the treaty of Rome—employment, working conditions, equal treatment for men and women, the protection of children, protection of the elderly and protection of the disabled.
  I am sure that, if hon. Members tried to draw up a list of worthy causes, they probably could not do any better than the social charter. It would be difficult to imagine a set of people more deserving of protection and assistance. Yet, way back in December 1989, the Government found it impossible to accept that list, which forms the basis of the social chapter.
  My argument therefore is that the list in the fundamental charter is already extensively covered by existing obligations under the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act and has been accepted by all the other European Community Governments—

  459
  Governments of the left, coalition Governments of the centre and Governments of the right—not once, but on a number of occasions.
  Why do the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom find it so difficult to go along with the views of their parliamentary allies in the European Parliament and their political allies on the continent? The German Christian Democrats have been among the most enthusiastic supporters of the social chapter, as has every other major political party on the centre right of the political spectrum in the Community.
  We have heard a great deal from the Conservatives about their commitment to Europe. We also heard a great deal about it when the Conservative Members of the European Parliament joined the European People's party. Tonight there has been some discussion of the fact that it is okay for Conservative Members of the European Parliament to support the social chapter because they are part of the European People's party in the European Parliament and it is permissible.
  It will be interesting to find out the position of the Conservative party during the next European elections, which are not too far away in June 1994. The Conservatives will put up candidates and clearly they will be asked for their view of the social chapter. What will be the answer? Will they say that Conservative Members of the European Parliament have consistently supported the social chapter in that Parliament and that therefore it is okay to vote Conservative, or will they give the answer that we have heard this evening—that the Conservatives are against the social chapter and that they will all vote against it? They cannot have it both ways and say in the House that they are against the social chapter, yet allow their Members of the European Parliament to vote in favour of it consistently.
  Mr. Wells: I venture to suggest that the difference between the hon. Gentleman's view and that of the Conservative party is not that we disagree about making certain that the social conditions of the workplace are properly conducted and that there are fair wages and working conditions, but that we believe that those matters should be determined at national level—or perhaps not even at national level. We believe, as the Labour party used to believe, that they should be settled between an employer and an employee, represented by his trade union and by free collective bargaining. What is at stake is whether such matters should be determined at supranational level, disregarding the cultural and local conditions that apply in the workplace and make for harmonious management-worker relationships. It would be disastrous to lay down laws on such matters at international level.
  Mr. Hoon: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would deal with my argument about the apparent discrepancy between the views of Conservative Members of the European Parliament and their counterparts here.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Hoon: To be fair to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), I should try to answer his question. The answer can be found in the documents that I mentioned: the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the social chapter, which does not achieve what the hon. Gentleman suggests. The social chapter does not
  460
  prescribe all the terms and conditions affecting relations between employers and employees, but seeks to set out a framework, which is guaranteed at an international level. As more multinational corporations operate throughout the Community, the need for consistent standards will become inevitable. That was the point of my earlier argument. If we have a single market, it must regulate activities across all that market, on behalf of employees and businesses. That is the point of the social chapter.
  Mr. Wells: When the Single European Act was introduced, we thought exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes: that it contained general statements of intent which would be settled in detail at local as well as national level. What has happened is that enthusiasts in the Community have, time and again, extended the meaning of articles 117, 118a and so on to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It was at that point that my colleagues and I on the Select Committee on European Legislation and others began to smell a rat and say that we should halt and go no further. We cannot agree to the social charter, and therefore we cannot agree to the social protocol.
  Mr. Hoon: The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the enthusiasts to which he refers are the European Commission. It has the sole right of initiative to make law. There are two British Commissioners, one of whom is a Conservative, and they and their colleagues are responsible for putting forward legislative proposals. Those proposals are then discussed in the European Parliament and, ultimately, a decision is taken by the Council of Ministers—a Conservative Minister is, at all times, a member of that Council.
  We are not talking about an alien body trying to impose things on the United Kingdom, but such is the language often used by Conservative Members. We are talking about Britain playing its full and effective role in the creation of the single market.
  I had always assumed that Conservative Members saw the benefits of the single market in terms of benefits for business. They must accept, however, that it follows that those benefits must be extended to all those who work for those businesses. One cannot simply say that one will take advantage of the single market in favour of businesses and will not extend those benefits to their employees.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I sought to intervene earlier when the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that it would seem that Conservative Members of the European Parliament are not always in tune with the policies of the British Conservative party and Government. Can he reassure me that Labour Members of the European Parliament have always supported Opposition Front-Bench policy?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In any political party there is a range of views, but I am sure that he would agree that there is something different between occasional disagreements over policy and something as fundamental as the social chapter. After all, his Government spent an extraordinary amount of time and invested too much political capital in opting out of the social chapter. They clearly thought that it was important and that it was in the national interests, as we have heard over and over again. In June 1994 the Conservative party will ask people to vote for its candidates in the elections to

  461
  the European Parliament and I do not think that it is unreasonable for people to ask what those candidates stand for. They should know whether they stand for the policies of the European People's party or for those of the Conservative party of the United Kingdom.
  The Chairman: Order. I do not think that electioneering comes under the terms of amendment No. 7.
  Mr. Hoon: I was temporarily carried away by the enthusiasm of Conservative Members.
  There is a difference between the attitude of continental businesses and Governments to the social chapter and that of the British Conservative Government. We have been told tonight and on countless previous occasions that the reason why the British Government are so keen to opt out of the social chapter is that it makes British business uncompetitive. Why is it that German, French and Italian companies appear to have no difficulty in accepting its provisions? There is no pressure on the Governments of those countries to opt out of the social chapter, but many of them are what we would describe as Conservative ones —they are supposed to share the philosophy of the British Conservative party. The reality is that those European businesses recognise the practical advantages of the social chapter to their operations. They know that without the guarantees of basic standards of social protection, their businesses could be fundamentally undermined in a single market by the deliberate driving down of such standards. Multinational corporations could play off one country against another.
  German companies know full well that in a truly single market there will be a temptation for capital to move to those countries where the costs of business are lowest. That might well mean—[Laughter.] Conservative Members should hear my argument before gleefully seizing on the point that I am making. At present, the costs of doing business are lowest in countries like Greece and Portugal, where wage rates and standards of social protection are significantly lower than elsewhere in the Community.
  9.30 pm
  The German Christian Democrats—the political allies of the Conservative party have accepted those arguments. That is precisely why they are so much in favour of the social chapter. They know that if one allows capital to move to countries like Greece and Portugal, the only way in which it is possible to compete for such investment is to continue the spiralling down of standards that that would necessarily involve. It caused some glee among those on the Government Front Bench when I made that point, but I think that British people would be interested to know whether the policy of the British Government in opposing the social chapter is designed to drive down levels of social protection, wages and the benefits available to employees to the levels that pertain in Greece and Portugal.
  Is the argument against the social chapter that we want to compete for inward investment by reducing standards and wages to make us the cheapest place in Europe to do business? If that is the argument, it should be spelt out more clearly than it has been. If the Government want to turn Britain into an offshore economy, they should say so clearly. If they object to the social chapter because they want the lowest social standards in Europe because, at
  462
  present, conducting business here is more costly than in Portugal and Greece, it is incumbent on the Conservative party to say so clearly.
  Some support for the Government's position has occasionally come from employers' organisations. We have heard such organisations cited in the arguments of Conservative Members. Those organisations claim that it is impossible for them to meet the cost of the social chapter in the United Kingdom, but those same organisations— often the same companies—have operations in France, Germany and Italy. The same companies that complain bitterly that, in the United Kingdom, they cannot afford the social chapter, can apparently afford those costs in Germany, France and Italy. I have never been able to understand the difference and why it is that a multinational corporation can cheerfully apply the standards of the social chapter in Germany, Italy or France, but not in the United Kingdom.
  We are witnessing the creation of a double standard, which means that those same multinational corporations, when negotiating terms and conditions with their work force on the continent, adopt a different approach from that which they take with their work force in the United Kingdom. Such a double standard will create significant legal confusion among the contracts of employment of those in the United Kingdom and those elsewhere.
  The Government's refusal to accept the social chapter creates a curious legal position. By refusing to endorse that section of the Maastricht treaty dealing with the social dimension, the other 11 countries gave themselves an option. They could accept that, because they could not obtain unanimity on that part of the treaty, it should disappear. If some of the arguments made earlier were correct and there is already a groundswell of opinion on the continent against the social chapter, presumably those other countries would have decided that if all 12 member states could not agree to the social chapter, that part of the treaty should fall. However, that has not happened.
  In agreeing to the social protocol, those countries demonstrated their determination to make that part of the Maastricht treaty law. They went to the trouble of agreeing a protocol that bound 11 member states rather than all 12. They need not have done so. In the past, they would probably have quietly abandoned the process. If the arguments made earlier in today's debate were true and there was real opposition to the social chapter, those countries should have done that. Instead, 11 countries, rather than all 12, agreed to bind themselves under the social protocol.
  What does that mean in practical legal terms? It is that those 11 countries can make legislation under the terms of the protocol which will be binding and effective in those 11 member states. Presumably, it will not be binding or effective in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Garnier: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the fact that the social chapter will be enforced only in the 11 countries that have agreed to it, if our Parliament thought that the principles in the social chapter would be good for this country we could pass a Bill to incorporate them into British law? Just because we have not agreed to the social chapter at the same time as the 11 other countries does not mean that we are forbidden to introduce similar domestic legislation. I am sure that the

  463
  hon. Gentleman would support such legislation, although we might disagree about forcing it on this country. His argument is based on a false premise.
  Mr. Hoon: I accept that the Government could introduce such legislation, but that would rather defeat the purpose of opting out of the social chapter in the first place. If the Government intended to do that, presumably they would do so through the institutions of the European Community. That is what the other 11 member states wanted and expected the Government to do.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, can he explain why Sir Michael Agnus of the CBI has said that 60 per cent. of all inward investment into the EC during the past 10 years has come to this country precisely because we do not have the sort of rules and regulations favoured by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Hoon: That argument cannot be sustained on any rational basis. The figure of 60 per cent. has not been worked out in any sensible way. The hon. Gentleman misses the point of what the single market and the European Community is all about. It is not about inward investment to one member state; it is about creating a consistent legal approach across the Community. The Conservative party has argued enthusiastically for the creation of the single market because it says that it is good for the very business described by the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members cannot claim that somehow or other, because it is good for business, those benefits should not be extended elsewhere. That argument has caused the Conservative party the greatest difficulty. It failed to understand the implications of the single market for those self-same businesses, many of which have operations thoughout the Community.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to clarify what I said earlier. I meant to say that 60 per cent. of all Japanese and American inward investment in the Community came to this country. Is it not a fact that if we are to compete as an advanced western economy and if we are to create the maximum number of jobs, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party want, we must have a high-productivity and high-wage economy? The only way to achieve that is by reducing the barriers of trade, not by increasing them, which is what the social chapter would force on this country.
  Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I want this country to be an advanced western economy. My concern is that by objecting to the social chapter on the ground that we want to reduce the costs of employing people—which is really the argument—we will not become an advanced western economy because we will be competing with poorest countries of western Europe and, indeed, the world. How will we develop the training, education and skills required if the Government are constantly preoccupied with driving down the standards that we need to improve if we are to become an advanced western economy?
  Mr. Peter Shore: It is clear that there is concern about competitiveness. This country is nothing like as strong and as competitive as it should be. There is an obvious contradiction in the Government's policy. They felt that they could not accept
  464
  a social chapter that would raise costs for British industry
  —that is inevitable as it would lead to an improvement in working conditions—because at the time they were committed to a fixed exchange rate and therefore could not make any alteration in relative costs by allowing the exchange rate to adjust itself to increasing costs. Is not that the real reason? Therefore, now that the Government have abandoned the exchange rate mechanism, surely their whole argument in favour of not accepting the social charter has collapsed.
  Mr. Hoon: As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. However, I suspect that if I were to answer his question fully and talk about the exchange rate mechanism, you, Mr. Morris, would rebuke me once again for straying from the subject of debate. Therefore, I shall resist that temptation.
  I have talked about the Government's double standards. They have consistently argued against the creation of a two-speed Europe. But, in conclusion, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to consider the legal regime that has been created in the EC as a result of opting out of the social chapter. We shall now have a two-speed Europe where other countries will be able, by virtue of the social protocol, to move ahead more quickly to protect their employees and their people, passing legislation that will apply in 11 of the member states, creating in the process not simply a two-speed Europe but a two-tier Europe with two separate legal systems within European law, one for Britain and one for the remaining members of the EC.
  If Conservative Memberrs are puzzled about that argument, I shall develop it a little. Presumably, when new European law is made under the social protocol, it will bind only the 11 member states that have signed the social protocol. They will pass new legislation which will become binding within their own jurisdictions.
  If there is then a legal dispute over the interpretation of a new directive or regulation, whatever it happens to be, the European Court of Justice will ultimately be responsible for interpreting EC legislation. Its decisions are binding on all EC member states by virtue of the treaty of Rome. Its decisions are binding on the United Kingdom by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972.
  European Court decisions are usually a synthesis of a variety of different European legal materials. They will look at the treaties, at regulations and directives and at decided cases. They will then interpret the new directive under the social protocol and try to reach a decision on the case before them.
  But in reaching that decision, where do we in the United Kingdom look for our case law? Do we look at all European Court decisions that do not involve the social protocol and say that that is European law in the United Kingdom, or do we look, as lawyers on the continent will look, at all the European Court decisions?
  How can the Government agree when there are two separate legal jurisdictions? How do we decide what legal protection is available to citizens of the EC when there are two different standards based on the interpretation of legislation made under the social protocol? It is legal and constitutional nonsense to suggest that that can occur, but that is the reality of what the Government have achieved by opting out of the social protocol.
  Mr. Marlow: One reason why hon. Members are told that they should agree to the Maastricht treaty is that, if

  465
  we do not, and there is no Maastricht treaty, the other 11 will put their own Maastricht treaty together, excluding us. The the United Kingdom is a signatory to the treaty of Rome, which will still exist. Therefore, there cannot be a Maastricht treaty of 11 against the treaty of Rome, for exactly the same reason as the hon. Gentleman is putting forward.
  Mr. Hoon: That is really the argument that I was developing in the specific area of the social protocol. There will be legislation under the social protocol which will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice, which will produce decisions. I invite the Minister when he replies to comment on the British Government's position. What exactly will they do when a case is decided by the European Court of Justice that has implications—
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be out of order to be put in a position of knowing what sort of discussion is currently going on with respect to the procedures that are being followed in the House and the movement towards the 10 o'clock motion—
  The Chairman: Order. The Chair is not interested in movements in the Chamber, as long as they do not interfere with what goes on between the Chair and the hon. Member who is speaking.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Hoon: I have talked about the position of a citizen on the continent who is concerned about the implications of the social protocol, or legislation made under it. It follows, however, that a United Kingdom citizen— working, perhaps, for a multinational corporation, with counterparts in other Community countries—might feel understandably aggrieved if his or her rights in relation to the employer were significantly different from those of employees in exactly the same position, in a country that had agreed legislation under the protocol.
  Dr. Godman: It appears that the European Court of Justice, in terms of the Maastricht treaty, will have the jurisprudence to deal with precisely such complaints. An individual citizen will have the right to take his or her Government to court—a domestic court, that is—if he or she, and his or her legal advisers, believe that the Government concerned are failing to protect his or her interests.
  Mr. Hoon: That, to date, has been the position in principle and it will remain the position until the Maastricht treaty and the social protocol come into force. But what will happen if a new directive is agreed under the social protocol and the United Kingdom citizen feels that his or her rights may be covered by that protocol? If we advise such people to take their cases to the European Court of Justice, the Government are likely to tell us that they are not bound by the directive. Clearly, the rights of United Kingdom citizens will be second rate in comparison with those of continental citizens.
  Mr. Shore: That being so, is not it almost certain that appeals would be made to the European Court and the British position would be undermined?
  Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to answer for the Government. I doubt, however, whether the Government will concede that, if a United Kingdom citizen takes to the European Court a case based on a directive passed under the social protocol, the case can be decided by the European Court on the basis of that directive. The Government will say, "We opted out of the social chapter and did not sign the social protocol; therefore, the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction in this case."
  Dr. Godman: May I put the social chapter to one side for a moment and refer my hon. Friend to directives established under the aegis of article 118a of the Single European Act? Surely such directives would allow an individual citizen, or a trade union, to take the Government to the European Court.
  Is not it interesting that, in all his interventions, the Minister of State has chosen to ignore the growing power of the European Court of Justice and the power that is to be given to it?
  Mr. Hoon: The Government have not opted out of article 118a. They cannot do so now; they accepted it when they signed up to the Single European Act.
  My hon. Friend has made a fair point. It is interesting to note that article 118a will cover much the same areas as the social policy protocol in the treaty. Further interesting confusion will result if the citizen whom I have described challenges a directive under the social protocol. What will be the Government's reaction? In most cases dealt with by the European Court of Justice, not just one case or directive is cited, but a series of cases or directives. How do we disentangle the part of the European Court's decision which is outside the social protocol from that which is inside? How will it work in the United Kingdom?
  The Government are creating a confused legal situation and are undermining the constitution and coherence of the European Community. They claim to be at the heart of Europe, but they are doing fundamental damage to the coherence of the Community; they have confused its constitution and are now producing a confused and confusing legal situation. They are failing in their duty to United Kingdom citizens.
  Mr. Garnier: I begin by referring to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan). The amendment and those who support it are in essence seeking to do nothing other than destroy the treaty. I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that one must ratify the treaty as a whole or not at all.
  Now that the negotiators have provided the House and the country with one treaty to be considered as a whole, it is not open to us to say that we like one bit and not another, that we shall take one bit and leave another. We must consider the document as a whole. The treaty includes the agreement on social policy concluded between member states of the European Community with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  The treaty of Maastricht contains the protocol that opts us out of the social chapter. We must not believe that there is one treaty for the 11 and one for us—it is one treaty. It just so happens—thank goodness—that, having negotiated at Maastricht in December 1991, my right hon.

  467
  Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor were able to bring to the House a treaty which does not contain the social chapter.
  I assure the House that the textile workers in my constituency are gratified that we shall not have to suffer under the imposition of provisions that may be attractive to the other 11 but which are wholly foreign and unnecessary to us and, I believe, destructive of the economy of the east midlands. By bringing the Maastricht treaty into English law, the Bill provides that domestic decisions take precedence over the social chapter. We do not have to do what the other 11 member states wish to do.
  Article 1 of the agreement on social policy states:
  "The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment,"—
  a very fine thing—
  "improved living and working conditions,"—
  again, very fine aims—
  "proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion"
  whatever that means. It continues:
  "To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations,"—
  Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I shall finish the sentence. Article I concludes its list of objectives thus:
  "and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy."
  They are no doubt wonderful objectives, but we have not agreed to them being included in the treaty. However, we do not need to prevent the other 11 member states from agreeing them. It is fortunate for us that we have not agreed to them on this side of the English channel.
  Dr. Godman: I ask this question with no hidden motive: was the hon. Gentleman present to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith)? If he was, he will have heard his hon. Friend say that the European Court of Justice may level out some of the bumps to be found here in the exclusion of the social charter. He suggested that under article 118a individuals or organisations may be able to approach the European Court of Justice to ensure that they are treated similarly to the way in which individuals or organisations in the other 11 countries are treated.
  Mr. Garnier: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, sadly, I was not here while my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford was speaking. No doubt I shall have the advantage of reading my hon. Friend's speech tomorrow morning.
  I shall continue to deal with what the treaty actually says. As I said, it must be remembered that the treaty is to be looked at as one document. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it does not contain the agreement on the social chapter which the other 11 member states have signed.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: The hon. Gentleman read out a list of what he described as wonderful things. Surely that description was not genuine. I reckon that that list contains simple, decent honest aspirations for the working folk of Great Britain. Surely such things should not be described as wonderful; people should be entitled to them.
  Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said a moment earlier, perhaps he would not have said that. The aspirations that the other 11 countries have agreed should form part of the treaty may well be shared by many British people, for all we know. But the difference between us and the other 11 countries is that I believe that such matters should be decided domestically, not through the Maastricht treaty.
  I argue from an unashamedly Tory point of view. I fully accept that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), being a full-blown socialist— [Interruption.]—or a full-blown something else, may well have other views. He may wish the EC and the Commission to interfere in the shape of his doorknobs and everything else. But neither I nor my constituents want the Commission to interfere in domestic employment law or the other matters set out in the protocol.
  Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend accept that much of our health and safety legislation, for example, is extremely good—well ahead of standards set elsewhere in Europe? Would not the Commission and the Council of Ministers be wise to consider the way in which we do things, instead of trying to impose other people's rules on us? Should they not accept that the way in which we do things should be the model for the rest of Europe?
  Mr. Garnier: Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, but I can think of no better person than her to go across to Europe to inform people exactly what we do here.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: May I continue for one more moment?
  As I said, my approach to the treaty is unashamedly Tory—and I am happy to say that that was also the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues at the Maastricht negotiations. What is more, our approach is also one of unashamed British national self-interest. [Interruption.] Perhaps we are hearing oohs and aahs from the Opposition because they are ashamed of being British, and rather ashamed of what the Government have done to advance the self-interest of this country.
  Paragraph 1 of article 2 of the protocol suggests that
  "With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 1",
  which I have already mentioned,
  "the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields:
  —improvement in particular of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South
  (Mrs. Currie) has said, the British Parliament has already passed health and safety legislation well in advance of anything we can see elsewhere. Paragraph 1 of article 2 says:
  "With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 1, the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields".
  Mr. Marlow rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but THE CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Garnier: I repeat what paragraph 1 of article 2 says:
  "With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 1, the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States"—
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee to report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

PETITION
10 pm
PETITION

  Noise
  Mr. Jim Dowd: I am pleased to present, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), a petition calling upon this House to introduce new legislation to replace the ineffective enforcement procedures currently operative in England and Wales with regard to noise pollution and nuisance. The petition is from about 4,000 residents of the London borough of Lewisham and beyond, and it states:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce new legislation to establish a new offence of night noise nuisance, accompanied by a minimum fine of £500 for noise nuisance occurring between the hours 9 pm and 7 am, and institute a full review of the practical issues of noise law enforcement, involving local authority environmental health officers and police officers directly involved in noise abatement work and members of groups representing the victims of noise pollution.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Defence Industries (Redundancies)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: British manufacturing industry is absolutely vital to our future if we are to be a successful trading nation. Two recessions in the past decade have caused enormous damage to our manufacturing base, and some of our finest companies have been forced to sack thousands of skilled workers— workers the country can ill afford to lose.
  Within manufacturing, the engineering industry in particular has been badly hit. Until recently, one important sector of engineering largely escaped the ravages of the past 13 years—the defence sector, which in many ways represents the very best, the finest, of British engineering, with world-class design, development and production facilities, and with the finest skilled work force of its kind in Europe. Sadly, this vital sector of engineering is now at risk as a result of what I have to describe as the haphazard and random cuts being forced through by the Treasury. These cuts not only threaten huge additional redundancies amongst defence workers but also, I believe, call into question the maintenance of Britain's strategic defence industries and the ability of a future British Government to call upon our indigenous defence industrial base to meet our national defence requirements.
  I do not believe that these are exaggerated claims. Redundancies announced recently by defence contractors largely make the point. In recent months we have had the declaration of 4,000 redundancies at Lucas Industries, 3,000 at British Aerospace and the closure of the works at Hatfield, nearly 600 at Rolls-Royce Aero Engines in Coventry, 400 at Marconi Underwater Systems, nearly 1,000 at Cammell Laird, and the closure of one of the finest British shipyards. Some 1,300 jobs have been lost recently at Royal Ordnance plc, 1,200 jobs have been lost recently at Swan Hunter on the Tyne and 400 jobs were recently lost in my constituency at the Vickers shipyard in Barrow.
  The list is dismal and it spells misery and insecurity for thousands of defence workers and their families. The combined total of job losses in the defence industries over the past two years reaches the staggering total of almost 80,000.
  Let us consider some of the consequences of those redundancies in the defence communities. Some of the findings are truly startling. In my constituency, the consequences and effects of unemployment have already had a devastating impact. The number of people claiming sickness benefit is rising rapidly in my constituency—twice as fast as in other comparable towns in the northern region. The figure has risen by 30 per cent. in the past 18 months. There are almost 100 new claims for sickness benefit every week, which is three times the national average. Stress-related illnesses have risen and the suicide rate has increased fivefold among young men in my constituency. More tranquillisers are prescribed in my constituency than anywhere else in Cumbria.
  Why should defence workers be forced to pay the price for the peace dividend? Their contribution to the nation's defence has always been exemplary. Now that the cold war is over—hon. Members of all parties welcome that—it is completely unacceptable that their service to the nation is
  472
  being rewarded in this way. It is being rewarded by unemployment and ill health, as the experience in my constituency has clearly shown.
  The Opposition recognise the need for defence spending to reflect the new security requirements of Britain and of our NATO allies. I am sure that that is common ground between us. My criticism of the Government is that there is no sign and as yet no evidence that they have appreciated the need for strategic planning in phasing down present levels of defence spending or that they have any coherent approach towards dealing with the surplus capacity in the industry.
  We may have arrived at the kernel of the problem. It is not true to say that there is surplus capacity in the defence industries. I argue that we now have released capacity. We have under-utilised capacity in this sector of the engineering base. It is tragic that the Government are not able to develop any coherent policy for dealing with the extra capacity in the defence industries. With imagination and resolve, that under-utilised capacity could be saved for the benefit of the United Kingdom engineering and manufacturing industries and, most importantly, for the long-term future of many defence-dependent communities.
  Two years after "Options for Change", there are significant redundancies in the defence industrial base of Britain. Major redundancies are still to come. It has been estimated that as many as 125,000 further defence workers will lose their jobs over the next five years. That is appalling. To date, the Government have shown no strategic ability to plan for the future of the British defence industrial base.
  There is a real risk that we are coming close to a melt-down. Strategically important British defence companies are shedding workers at an alarming rate. European defence companies are not shedding workers in the same numbers as British defence companies are.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I commend the hon. Gentleman on choosing this subject for his Adjournment debate tonight. He briefly mentioned Royal Ordnance. Is he aware that I have a small arms manufacturing capacity at Radway Green in my constituency? Is he aware that it is a strategically important industry? If the Government do not provide orders for that factory, we shall not be able to manufacture small arms ammunition any more in this country; we shall have to rely on being supplied from overseas. Is he aware of the importance of orders coming to Radway Green so that the factory can plan its production and capacity for the future?
  Mr. Hutton: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. There is no doubt that Royal Ordnance lies at the centre of Britain's defence industry; it is impossible to imagine an indigenous defence industry in this country without a buoyant and vibrant Royal Ordnance, with sufficient orders and employing the skilled workers in their factories. In particular, I know the importance of the establishment in the hon. Lady's constituency. So we are in complete agreement about the significance of Royal Ordnance and its central role in Britain's defence industries.
  It is worth pointing out—I am sure that the hon. Lady is fully aware of this—that there have been more than 10,000 redundancies at Royal Ordnance since it was privatised in 1987, despite significant improvements in

  473
  productivity and the increased ability of Royal Ordnance to turn orders into deliveries in a short time. I hope to deal with Royal Ordnance in greater detail shortly.
  We are in a serious situation. As I have said, we are close to a melt-down, and I stick to that. The British defence industry has suffered significant and heavy losses of its key, skilled industrial work force, particularly Barrow and Furness where we have lost more than 6,500 workers from the VSEL shipyard since October 1990. My understanding of the redundancies from Vickers leads me to conclude that it is the most important and highly skilled engineering workers who are the casualties of the heavy job losses from that work force. It is impossible to imagine shipyards like VSEL and Swan Hunter on the Tyne being able to survive into the next century while sustaining the present high level of redundancies amongst its key industrial workers.
  In the context of Royal Ordnance, it is very important that there is a speedy renewal of the ammunition and equipment purchasing agreement. In the past five years, Royal Ordnance has demonstrated its ability to change, and it is worth pointing out that there is full co-operation between the trade unions at Royal Ordnance and the management of the company in trying to achieve some of the new targets facing them in very difficult trading circumstances.
  Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give some assurance tonight to the House and to many thousands of workers throughout the country that a speedy renewal of the agreement is imminent because, without it, there is a real fear among the Royal Ordnance work force of further substantial and, I believe, unjustified redundancies. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has made clear, that will result in an increased reliance by the British armed forces on equipment and supplies from foreign contractors. On defence grounds, quite apart from social and employment considerations, that is an extremely unhealthy situation for the British armed forces to find themselves in.
  I hope that the Minister can also make some clearer commitment to the House tonight about the state of various important naval procurement decisions that need to be taken without further delay, and, in particular, three decisions that many Opposition Members expect shortly —the launch platform helicopter vessel and the two launch platform docks.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend not just on his selection of this topic for debate on the Adjournment but on the way in which he has addressed the concerns of many people in many constituencies and not just those of his own constituency, Barrow and Furness. Having said that, I make no apology for addressing my remarks solely to Swan Hunter, in my constituency of Wallsend. My hon. Friend referred to the helicopter carrier that we are all aware is a vital order. It is particularly vital to the future well-being of Swan Hunter. Swan Hunter has sought to diversify into the merchant shipbuilding sector but has been denied access to European Community intervention funding; it must, therefore, rely on Ministry of Defence orders.
  We know that, for the Royal Navy, the helicopter carrier is a top priority. It is also a top priority for the
  474
  people of the north-east, and we want an indication from the Minister tonight that the order will be placed as soon as possible, because we are confident that it will be won by Swan Hunter and thereby keep jobs in Wallsend and bring new hope to the riverside communities on the Tyne.
  Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Swan Hunter shipyard on the Tyne is without doubt a centre of world-class engineering excellence. Many of my hon. Friend's constituents will be anxiously awaiting what the Minister has to say about the landing platform helicopter order.
  It is also worth bearing in mind the importance to the Navy and to what is left of the British naval shipbuilding industry of the orders for landing platform docks. That matter is of concern to my constituents, as too is the order for the batch 2 Trafalgars. Many of my hon. Friends and I are concerned that one of the changes resulting from "Options for Change" is the substantial reductions in the number of submarines serving in the Royal Navy. Many hon. Members will be concerned that 12 SSNs— nuclear-powered submarines—might not be sufficient for the Royal Navy in future.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that the very minimum order for the Batch 2 Trafalgars will be sufficient to replace all the aging Swiftsure class of SSNs? That is a matter of great and direct interest to the future prosperity of my constituents. Without any doubt, the VSEL shipyard in Barrow is the finest manufacturer of submarines in the world.
  In addition to those decisions on naval procurement decisions, there should be some help for companies that now find themselves without any MOD work at all or with declining volumes of MOD work. I have noted the responses that the Minister's right hon. Friends have given in response to questions in the House on this matter, but it is not good enough for the Ministry of Defence to say that it is up to defence contractors to respond to their changing needs on their own without any assistance from the Ministry of Defence or other Government Departments.
  Many of those suppliers have provided equipment for the defence of this country, often at very short notice—for example, during the Falklands crisis. It is not the proper reward for the service that those companies have rendered to the country over many decades for Ministers now to say that it is up to those private companies to sort out the problem on their own. Those companies have been sole suppliers for the MOD, often for decades—for generations in many cases, as is the case with the shipyard in Barrow. They therefore look to the Ministry of Defence and, legitimately, to the Government to provide them with practical assistance at this moment.
  There is a crisis for many important engineering defence contractors. We simply cannot make many of those necessary changes and adjustments on our own. I ask the Minister to consider seriously that it is not a reasonable response for him and his right hon. Friends consistently to say to defence contractors such as VSEL in Barrow, "You are on your own." People in my constituency do not consider that that is anything like a sufficient response from the Government.
  The Minister and his Department should be developing a policy in conjunction with other Government

  475
  Departments to manage the painful process of change before irreversible damage is done to the foundations of Britain's engineering defence industries.
  10.17 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) for raising this subject and also for giving me a short period—I promise—in which to make one important point. I shall be brief, because the Minister will want to respond to a number of points. The issue that I raise is the state of the royal ordnance factories, and in particular two outstanding contracts which, quite frankly, the Government have dithered over for a considerable period. The first issue is the L106, which is the contract for fuses. Last week, I visited Chorley and Blackburn factories. The management and the work force there as well as at other factories throughout the country are desperately worried. The management of Royal Ordnance factories and their workers and I expect an extremely early announcement. I hope that the Minister is able to respond tonight.
  On the L106, if the Minister provides only a contract or a tender for a 12-month period, it will place Royal Ordnance plc at a tremendous disadvantage as it will have to spread the load of reduced expenditure and reduced purchasing over a five-year period at least to avoid the worst effects of the decline in defence procurement for the RAF.
  The second and more general issue is an even greater scandal. It is the replacement for the explosives, propellants and related products agreement five-year contract which was placed with Royal Ordnance just after privatisation about five years ago. In other words, for five years the Government have had the full knowledge that the contract will finish in March. Anyone who knows the industry is well aware of the importance of putting a contract out to tender early. Royal Ordnance plc is not frightened of competition.
  The contract should be for another five years to give Royal Ordnance the opportunity to compete on an even playing field. It should also be comprehensive, as was the EPREP contract. That would give Royal Ordnance the opportunity to tender for a range of ammunition. If the contract is short term and for specific pieces of ammunition, rather than comprehensive, Royal Ordnance will be placed at a disadvantage to its foreign competitors.
  The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) mentioned the difficulties which her factory at Radway Green will face. There is a reduction in the demand for ammunition from that factory of more than 70 per cent. We cannot possibly expect a Royal Ordnance factory to base its future projections merely on next year's figures. When there is a 73 per cent. reduction in the demand for ammunition and no comprehensive, long-term offer for a range of ammunition over five years is put out to tender, Royal Ordnance will be competitive.
  I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that the Minister should be able to give a definite response to our questions. In one case there have been delays for months. In another case, the Government have had five years in which to decide what they will do. If they do not know now, they will never know.
  10.22 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): As is traditional on these adjournment debates, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on his good fortune in raising such an important subject for debate today. The hon. Gentleman represents a higher proportion of constituents who are involved in the defence industries than any other hon. Member in the House. He has certainly been a most assiduous and energetic Member in championing their cause in debates and in representations to Ministers.
  Some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made verged on the exaggerated and the melodramatic. It was totally uncharacteristic to hear such a tremendous trumpeting, even from the new, modern Labour party, of the need to spend taxpayers' money on defence in the ways suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I should not be surprised. The first time that I heard of the hon. Gentleman was during the election campaign when, with a great flash of excitement, he described the Opposition spokesman on defence as ignorant and ill-informed.
  Dr. Reid: Not defence, foreign affairs.
  Mr. Aitken: It was the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. There was a small choice in rotten apples, as Shakespeare used to say. The particular rotten apple to which the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was referring was the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. On one occasion when the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs was speaking on defence matters, he got it entirely wrong and was condemned.
  One would not think that one was addressing a party which had voted at its national conference for swingeing cuts in defence expenditure which would be equivalent to £6 billion. There is a remarkable difference between the quiet voice in the Adjournment debate of an hon. Member representing defence constituencies and the noisy voice of the Labour party conference bellowing for greater cuts.
  Mr. Hutton: Surely the Minister is not saying that I have a quiet voice on such matters. He described comments which I made previously in another context.
  Mr. Aitken: I certainly do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of inconsistency. I was simply saying that there are great splits and inconsistencies in the Labour party. I also suggested that there was a touch of exaggeration in some of the language he used.
  It is not correct to say that a meltdown is taking place in our defence industries. The hon. Gentleman painted a picture of suicides, tranquillisers and a meltdown. The reality is that our defence industries face difficult times. With the changed security environment, we must reduce our defence budget by some 10 per cent. over three years. That is a serious reduction, but it is not such a dramatic reduction as that with which many other industries have had to cope.
  As some compensation for those industries, we have a booming defence export side. British companies are showing satisfactory successes around the world. They now secure some 20 per cent. of the world export market, which is equivalent to about £4.5 billion a year. If one adds together our total domestic defence spending of some £9 billion on equipment and the burgeoning success of our exports at £4.5 billion, that is a £13.5 billion-a-year defence

  477
  industry, which is a long way from a meltdown creating suicides and the melodramatic scenario sketched by the hon. Gentleman. Having said that, of course there are real problems. Several perfectly valid and fair points were raised tonight and I shall do my best to answer them in the short time that remains to me.
  I was asked several questions about Royal Ordnance. In addition to the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) raised a valid point. She came to see me with several of our hon. Friends and made some effective representations, to which I listened carefully.
  Royal Ordnance is a fine British company which has been given the benefit of the explosives, propellants and related products agreement for the past few years. I have considerable sympathy with the difficult position that it will face as expenditure on defence equipment reduces by some 10.5 per cent. in the next three years. The force levels on which our planning is based mean that a reduction in ammunition orders is unavoidable.
  A rationalisation of the facilities of Royal Ordnance was recently announced by the company. That is a matter for the company, but I have noted that British Aerospace has said that it remains committed to a strategy of extending the scope of its presence in the defence market, with Royal Ordnance playing the lead role in the land systems sector. I am sure that, if Royal Ordnance continues to make good progress in increasing its competitiveness, its products will continue to win orders from both the Ministry of Defence, its domestic customer, and overseas customers.
  On the specific question of the EPREP agreement, I informed the House on 8 December that we did not intend to negotiate a successor agreement. The EPREP agreement was acknowledged from the start to be an interim agreement designed to give the newly privatised company a degree of certainty about its future business for five years. That was done so that it could achieve economies by rationalising and modernising its factories. That policy has been successful. It is now time for my Department to move, as was always the intention, to fully commercial arrangements with the company in accordance with our long-standing procurement policies.
  To this end, as I said in the House on 24 November, we have investigated the possibility of placing longer-term ammunition contracts. That is the very point which the hon. Member for Motherwell, North raised today. I am pleased to announce to the House that I have decided to follow that route. The Ministry of Defence contracts bulletin to be published on 3 February will include details of a package of ammunition requirements for delivery over a five-year period from 1993 to 1998. I expect that the majority of those orders will be won by competition.
  The quest for value for money remains at the centre of our approach, but the longer-term contracts will help to secure the armed forces' sources of supply of key types of ammunition, as well as giving industry and particularly Royal Ordnance much greater confidence and greater opportunities to plan ahead with security. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and other hon. Members who have raised the matter will be encouraged that we have moved in the direction that they sought.
  478
  Next, I was asked about some naval orders. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) asked me for the current position on the landing platform helicopter, which I acknowledge is of great interest to the fine company of Swan Hunter, many of the employees of which work in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Tenders for the LPH were received by 1 October last year. An announcement of the outcome of the tender exercise will be made following the full evaluation of the tenders received. That is not likely to be before the autumn this year. That is the normal time that it takes to evaluate such major tenders. That amount of time is needed because we must make a proper evaluation to ensure fair competition and best value for money.
  I am afraid that it is highly unlikely that the order will be advanced. The LPH is expected to enter service in the second half of the decade.
  Mr. Byers: The Minister will understand the importance of the timing of the order. I hear what he says about the need to evaluate properly the tenders that have been received. May I urge him to make haste in evaluating the tenders. It is important to Swan Hunter that the date is brought forward, if possible from autumn this year. Will he give an undertaking that he will at least consider the possibility of proceeding with greater haste in order to bring forward the placing of the order?
  Mr. Aitken: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request, because it is fair. We have a duty to be fair to other competitors, but I know of the great importance of the order to the shipbuilding industry and to Swan Hunter and we shall do what we can, although I cannot hold out any great hope at this stage of making unduly remarkable, or particularly rapid progress.
  Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm, once and for all, that the Government will definitely make that order and that it will be for a new-build vessel?
  Mr. Aitken: No Defence Minister can announce an order in advance of consideration of the tenders and of studying the financial position of the Ministry of Defence's budget at that moment. We have entered into the tender process in good faith and I have no reason to be anything other than positive about it.
  I think that I have dealt with the LPH situation. I was also asked about the submarine force, which is of particular interest to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, who is the Member of Parliament for the great Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Ltd. As he is aware, the Government are determined that the principles of competition and sound procurement practice will apply to the future order of submarines. We are already planning for the replacement of the Swiftsures and VSEL has completed its contract for design option studies for a second batch of Trafalgars, known as the batch 2 T class, or sometimes B2TC, and we are considering the results of those studies.
  Under sound procurement practice we must place a contract with a capable prime contractor and we think that that practice should be applied to the programme. We need and intend to have an adequate submarine force for the 21st century and we envisage the batch 2 Trafalgar class playing a crucial role in that process. We are now evaluating the studies produced by VSEL.

  479
  After some sound remarks about shipbuilding and Royal Ordnance, the hon. Gentleman switched to a familiar litany of the need for practical assistance—which decoded, means taxpayer's money—for defence diversification policy. I have to be very cautious and hesitant here, because the swords into ploughshares policy that the Labour party has espoused at various stages is not the business of Government or of taxpayer's money. The question of how we should respond to diversification—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (i) how many juveniles have been convicted of(a) offences against property, (b) assault, (c) taking cars without the owner's consent, (d) driving without a licence and (e) dangerous driving in England in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many juveniles have been convicted of burglary in England in the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of juveniles (persons aged 10 to under 17) convicted at all courts of certain offences 1987–91)

  England Principal offence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1 1991

  Offences against property

  Burglary

  10,244

  8,474

  7,060

  6,266

  5,549

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  19,967

  16,365

  10,013

  9,123

  7,976

  Fraud and forgery

  436

  357

  317

  243

  214

  Criminal damage

  1,462

  1,420

  1,072

  1,120

  969

  Assault

  Grievous bodily harm

  582

  616

  565

  551

  464

  Actual bodily harm

  2,789

  2,983

  2,863

  2,423

  2,190

  Assault on constable

  259

  240

  233

  232

  192

  Common assault1

  59

  59

  157

  220

  231

  Theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Table A Number and percentage of offenders found guilty at all courts and cautioned in the East Midlands region, Nottinghamshire police force area and England and Wales by age and type of offences 19911

  Area/type of offence

  Cautioned

  Aged under 21 years Found guilty

  Total found guilty or cautioned

  Cautioned

  All Ages Found guilty

  Total guilty or cautioned

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  [= 100%]

  [= 100%]

  [= 100%]

  East Midlands region

  Indictable offences

  10,868

  69

  9,541

  36

  20,409

  48

  15,782

  26,311

  42,093

  Summary non-motoring offences

  3,081

  59

  6,011

  17

  9,092

  22

  5,226

  36,420

  41,646

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  13,949

  66

  15,552

  25

  29,501

  35

  21,008

  62,731

  83,739

  Nottinghamshire pfa

  Indictable offences

  4,353

  67

  3,501

  38

  7,854

  50

  6,452

  9,190

  15,642

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1,040

  66

  2,100

  18

  3,140

  23

  1,573

  11,885

  13,458

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  5,393

  67

  5,601

  27

  10,994

  38

  8,025

  21,075

  29,100

  England and Wales

  Indictable offences

  119,424

  66

  115,376

  34

  234,800

  46

  179,885

  335,394

  515,279

  Summary non-motoring offences

  38,649

  39

  63,279

  14

  101,928

  19

  98,880

  450,558

  549,438

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  158,073

  57

  178,655

  23

  336,728

  32

  278,765

  785,952

  1,064,717

  1 Provisional.

  250

  England Principal offence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1 1991

  Theft

  921

  668

  582

  524

  500

  Unauthorised taking2

  4,919

  4,507

  4,284

  3,861

  3,573

  Driving without a licence

  38

  42

  16

  28

  26

  Dangerous driving

  Reckless driving

  76

  113

  169

  214

  288

  1 Provisional.

  2 Reclassification as summary offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (October 1988).

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of offences committed by juveniles in England while on bail in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not currently available nationally. However, my Department is presently examining with the police ways in which the extent of offending on bail can be effectively monitored at a national level.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult the police authorities on the reform of legislation to permit custodial sentences to be imposed on juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Jack
  We intend to consult widely, including representative organisations of the police service, before bringing any firm legislative proposals before Parliament.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders in(a) the east midlands, (b) Nottinghamshire, (c) Mansfield and (d) England and Wales were under 21 years in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: Information for 1991, which is provisional, is given in the tables.
  251

  Table B Number and percentage of offenders found guilty at Mansfield1 petty sessional division by age and type of offence 19912

  Area/type of offence

  Aged under 21 years Found guilty

  All ages Found guilty

  Number

  per cent.

  ( =100 per cent.)

  Mansfield petty sessional division

  Indictable offences

  734

  41

  1,807

  Summary non-motoring offences

  418

  18

  2,364

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  1,152

  28

  4,171

  1 Including convictions at the Crown Court where the committing court was Mansfield petty sessional division.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. George Pai
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to the deportation of Mr. George Pai of Manchester.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Chan Yee Yau, also known as Georgie Pai, last entered the United Kingdom in breach of an extant deportation order. He was arrested on 9 December 1991 and detained as an illegal entrant with a view to his removal. On 19 December 1991 an application on Mr. Yau's behalf to the divisional court for leave to move for judicial review of the decision to remove him was granted. The case was adjourned pending the outcome of a relevant case then before the European Court of Justice. On 24 December 1991 the court granted an application for bail, and Mr. Yau was released. His case is still pending before the divisional court.

  Triads, Manchester
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Manchester on the progress of the investigations into Triad gangs in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. These are operational matters and the responsibility of the chief officer of the Greater Manchester police.

  Stabbings
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of stabbing there have been in each of the last three years in which the perpetrator has been aged(a) under 16, (b) 16 to 20, (c) 21 to 24 years or (d) other.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not collected centrally on the age of the perpetrator in all incidents of stabbing. However, the number of currently recorded homicides in England and Wales where the method of killing was by a sharp instrument is shown by age of suspect for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 in the following table:

  Offences currently recorded as homicide involving a sharp instrument by age of principal suspect

  Age of principal suspect

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aged less than 16

  1

  2

  2

  Aged 16–20

  32

  25

  32

  Aged 21–24

  34

  35

  29

  Aged 25 and above

  104

  108

  149

  Total

  171

  170

  212

  Betting Offices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to publish the Licensed Betting Office Regulation 1986 (Amendment) Regulations;

  (2) what consideration is being given to allowing betting offices to open during evening hours.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 19 January 1993, at column 141.

  Surveillance Equipment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce restrictions on the manufacture, use and sale of equipment that can be used to eavesdrop on the activities of private individuals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have no present plans to impose restrictions on the manufacture and sale of equipment that can be used to receive and amplify sound.

  As part of their response to the Calcutt review of press self-regulation—Official Report, 14 January, columns 1067–69—the Government have accepted the case for restrictions on the use of surveillance devices in certain circumstances. We have also accepted the Calcutt recommendations that further consideration should be given to legislation covering the interception of telecommunications, with a view to identifying all significant gaps and determining whether further legislation is needed, and that further consideration should be given to the introduction of a new tort of infringement of privacy.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons currently under the supervision of the probation service in England and Wales are considered to be mentally disordered or mentally ill.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1991, 147 persons conditionally discharged from psychiatric hospitals were under probation service supervision and a total of 911 persons commenced probation orders with a requirement of psychiatric treatment—784 non-residential, 119 residential, eight juvenile non-residential. Information on mental disorder and mental illness in respect of the total probation caseload is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Sodigar Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the post in Islamabad to refer the latest entry clearance application by Mr. Sodigar Hussain, date of birth 21 July 1959, to join his wife in the United Kingdom to him for consideration under the review concerning couples with children separated for more than five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Any further application by Mr. Hussain will be considered by the entry clearance officer under the immigration rules taking account of relevant policy guidance.

  Karimjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now release Karimjit Singh Chahal from Bedford prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The decision to detain Mr. Chahal is regularly reviewed, but at the present time my right hon. and learned Friend sees no grounds for his release.

  Mrs. Hildegarde Biel
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is to be taken on the application to remain in the United Kingdom by Mrs. Hildegarde Biel—Ref: IMP R63833/5 (S) and PO 17232/92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We hope to reach a decision shortly, and I will then write to the hon. Member.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision of the magistrates court in Leeds to impose a fine on Leeds city council after a child in its care committed a burglary on(a) crime prevention and reduction and (b) the resources available for diverting young people from criminal activity.

  Mr. Jack
  It would not be appropriate to comment on, or assess the impact of, a decision of the courts in an individual case. Nevertheless, we intend to monitor carefully the effect of the new powers for courts introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which, inter alia, allow them to make local authorities liable to pay fines and compensation when children in their care commit offences. The purpose of these new provisions, which parallel those which apply to parents, is to ensure that local authorities do all in their power to ensure that children in their care do not commit offences. Local authorities are under a separate duty under the Children Act 1989 to encourage children in their areas not to commit criminal offences.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Whisky
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in(a) duty rate and (b) total duty received on whisky and whiskey in each of the past 15 years.
  254
  Sir John Cope
  The information is as follows:

  Estimated duty ( £m) on whisky/whiskey

  Percentage change in duty rate

  1977–78

  447

  0.0

  1978–79

  567

  0.0

  1979–80

  572

  13.7

  1980–81

  578

  14.6

  1981–82

  623

  6.4

  1982–83

  478

  5.0

  1983–84

  818

  1.9

  1984–85

  591

  1.9

  1985–86

  714

  0.0

  1986–87

  667

  0.0

  1987–88

  698

  0.0

  1988–89

  682

  0.0

  1989–90

  650

  10.0

  1990–91

  726

  9.3

  1991–92

  730

  4.5

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables giving for an administrative assistant, an administrative officer, an executive officer, a higher executive officer and a principal UG7(a) the maximum annual salary on 1 April each year since 1970 and on 1 August 1992 excluding range or performance points, (b) the percentage of the national average wage represented by each figure and (c) the value today of the figures for 1 April 1976, 1 April 1980 and 1 April 1985 if they had been increased in line with (i) the movements in the retail prices index and (ii) the gross domestic product deflator.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is as follows:

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  Administrative Assistant

  1 April 1970

  943

  72.3

  1 April 1971

  1,037

  73.8

  1 April 1972

  1,123

  71.7

  1 April 1973

  1,235

  68.1

  1 April 1974

  1,456

  71.9

  1 April 1975

  1,940

  73.1

  1 April 1976

  1,940

  61.4

  1 April 1977

  1,940

  56.0

  1 April 1978

  2,608

  67.0

  1 April 1979

  2,894

  63.7

  1 April 1980

  3,155

  57.0

  1 April 1981

  4,070

  64.7

  1 April 1982

  4,340

  62.2

  1 April 1983

  4,584

  61.4

  1 April 1984

  4,813

  58.1

  1 April 1985

  5,054

  56.8

  1 April 1986

  5,357

  55.8

  1 April 1987

  5,799

  56.1

  1 April 1988

  6,081

  53.5

  1 April 1989

  6,324

  50.7

  1 April 1990

  7,322

  53.5

  1 April 1991

  8,720

  58.9

  1 April 1992

  8,790

  55.59

  1 August 1992

  8,790

  355.5

  If increased in line with Retail Price Index to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  6,526

  1 April 1980

  6,382

  1 April 1985

  7,353

  If increased in line with Gross Domestic Product Deflator to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  6,890

  255

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  1 April 1980

  6,438

  1 April 1985

  7,573

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  Administrative Officer

  1 April 1970

  1,253

  96·.0

  1 April 1971

  1,385

  98·5

  1 April 1972

  1,489

  95·0

  1 April 1973

  1,601

  88·3

  1 April 1974

  1,883

  92·9

  1 April 1975

  2,540

  95·7

  1 April 1976

  2,540

  80·4

  1 April 1977

  2,540

  73·4

  1 April 1978

  3,280

  84·2

  1 April 1979

  3,627

  79·8

  1 April 1980

  4,000

  72·2

  1 April 1981

  5,102

  81·2

  1 April 1982

  5,421

  77·7

  1 April 1983

  5,708

  76·5

  1 April 1984

  5,993

  72·3

  1 April 1985

  6,293

  70·8

  1 April 1986

  6,671

  69·5

  1 April 1987

  7,091

  68·6

  1 April 1988

  7,555

  66·5

  1 April 1989

  7,857

  63·0

  1 April 1990

  9,278

  67·8

  1 April 1991

  9,983

  67·4

  1 April 1992

  10,409

  65·7

  1 August 1992

  10,409

  365·7

  If increased in line with Retail Price Index to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  8,544

  1 April 1980

  8,092

  1 April 1985

  9,155

  If increased in line with Gross Domestic Product Deflator to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  9,021

  1 April 1980

  8,162

  1 April 1985

  9,429

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  Executive Officer

  1 April 1970

  1,835

  140.6

  1 April 1971

  2,000

  142.2

  1 April 1972

  2,150

  137.2

  1 April 1973

  2,288

  126.2

  1 April 1974

  2,782

  137.3

  1 April 1975

  3,670

  138.3

  1 April 1976

  3,670

  116.2

  1 April 1977

  3,670

  106.0

  1 April 1978

  4,579

  117.6

  1 April 1979

  5,043

  111.0

  1 April 1980

  5,700

  102.9

  1 April 1981

  7,247

  115.3

  1 April 1982

  7,700

  110.4

  1 April 1983

  8,078

  108.2

  1 April 1984

  8,492

  102.6

  1 April 1985

  8,917

  100.3

  1 April 1986

  9,452

  98.4

  1 April 1987

  9,864

  95.4

  1 April 1988

  10,755

  94.7

  1 April 1989

  11,185

  89.7

  1 April 1990

  12,621

  92.3

  1 April 1991

  13,605

  91.9

  1 April 1992

  14,165

  89.4

  1 August 1992

  14,165

  389.4

  256

  Salary1£

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  If increased in line with Retail Price Index to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  12,345

  1 April 1980

  11,531

  1 April 1985

  12,973

  If increased in line with Gross Domestic Product Deflator to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  13,034

  1 April 1980

  11,631

  1 April 1985

  13,361

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  Higher Executive Officer

  1 April 1970

  2,392

  183·

  1 April 1971

  2,625

  186·7

  1 April 1972

  2,809

  179·3

  1 April 1973

  2,961

  163·3

  1 April 1974

  3,585

  176·9

  1 April 1975

  4,700

  177·2

  1 April 1976

  4,700

  148·8

  1 April 1977

  4,700

  135·8

  1 April 1978

  5,718

  146·8

  1 April 1979

  6,233

  137·2

  1 April 1980

  7,250

  130·9

  1 April 1981

  9,184

  146·1

  1 April 1982

  9,758

  139·9

  1 April 1983

  10,218

  136·9

  1 April 1984

  10,729

  129·5

  1 April 1985

  11,263

  126·7

  1 April 1986

  11,941

  124·3

  1 April 1987

  12,448

  120·4

  1 April 1988

  13,458

  118·5

  1 April 1989

  13,996

  112·3

  1 April 1990

  15,786

  115·4

  1 April 1991

  17,017

  114·9

  1 April 1992

  17,718

  111·9

  1 August 1992

  17,718

  3111·9

  If increased in line with Retail Price Index to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  15,810

  1 April 1980

  14,666

  1 April 1985

  16,386

  If increased in line with Gross Domestic Product Deflator to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  16,693

  1 April 1980

  14,794

  1 April 1985

  16,876

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  Grade 7

  1 April 1970

  3,902

  299.0

  1 April 1971

  4,400

  312.9

  1 April 1972

  4,708

  300.4

  1 April 1973

  4,908

  270.7

  1 April 1974

  5,775

  285.0

  1 April 1975

  7,450

  280.8

  1 April 1976

  7,450

  235.8

  1 April 1977

  7,450

  215.2

  1 April 1978

  8,729

  224.2

  1 April 1979

  9,515

  209.4

  1 April 1980

  11,750

  212.2

  1 April 1981

  15,010

  238.7

  1 April 1982

  15,948

  228.6

  1 April 1983

  16,656

  223.2

  257

  Salary1 £

  Percentage of national average earnings2

  1 April 1984

  17,489

  211.1

  1 April 1985

  18,363

  206.5

  1 April 1986

  19,465

  202.7

  1 April 1987

  20,297

  196.2

  1 April 1988

  21,936

  193.1

  1 April 1989

  22,606

  181.3

  1 April 1990

  24,075

  176.0

  1 April 1991

  26,121

  176.4

  1 April 1992

  27,819

  175.6

  1 August 1992

  428,904

  3182.5

  If increased in line with Retail Price Index to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  25,060

  1 April 1980

  23,770

  1 April 1985

  26,716

  If increased in line with Gross Domestic Product Deflator to 1 April 1992:

  1 April 1976

  26,459

  1 April 1980

  23,977

  1 April 1985

  27,514

  Notes:

  1 National pay scales applying to civil servants outside London.

  2 Percentages of gross national earnings calculated on the basis of figures published in the New Earnings Survey, including overtime and allowances.

  3 Percentage based on the most recent figure available for national average gross annual earnings, i.e. as at 1 April 1992.

  4 Old scale maximum increased by the across-the-board increase of 3.9 per cent. payable from 1 August 1992. The old scale maximum is not a feature of the new pay arrangements introduced for certain grades (including Grade 7) on 1 August 1992.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Portillo
  HM Treasury has awarded two contracts to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months, one for staff appraisal training and a research project.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to public funds in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992 of granting banks tax relief on setting money aside in case of default on debts by third world countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is given in my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 7 December 1992, at columns 471–72.

  Child Care
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Treasury of tax relief on employer-provided child care in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and what are his estimates for the cost in 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The revenue cost of exempting employer-provided child care is estimated to be about £10 million for each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. The revenue cost for 1993–94 would depend on the level of provision.
  258
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in 1993–94 of extending tax relief on employer-provided child care to(a) employer-provided cheques and vouchers for child care and (b) all forms of employer assistance for child care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Exempting all existing employer assistance for child care would have a revenue cost, at 1992–93 levels of provision and subsidies, of approximately £5 million. There is insufficient information to subdivide this estimate. We expect that if such a measure were introduced there would be substantial behavioural effects.

  "Made in UK" Labels (Textile Imports)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what investigations he is intending to make into the production of "Made in UK" labels in Serbia and Macedonia which were supplied to Messrs. Dewhursts of Driffield, North Humberside;

  (2) what proposals he has for the examination of tachographs in establishing the source of textile products imported by Dewhursts of Driffield, North Humberside;

  (3) whether he intends to arrange for the interview of vehicle drivers employed or formerly employed by Burlington Ocean Express so as to secure statements on their involvement in the transportation of textile products from Serbia to an Otex-owned factory in Macedonia;

  (4) what information he has as to the relationship between Otex of Macedonia and Genex of Serbia;

  (5) what proportion of textile imports for Messrs. Dewhursts held at port in December 1992 were subject to individual examination.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: Customs tell me that they have almost completed inquiries in this case and so far there is no evidence to suggest any breaches of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. As the case is not yet finalised, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many disabled people below the pensionable age are living in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  Estimates derived from the surveys of disability undertaken by the policy planning and research unit of the Department of Finance and Personnel in 1989–90 indicate that, according to the definition used in the survey, there were 96,000 disabled people under pension age in Northern Ireland.

  Forestry (Public Access)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public access agreements have been concluded in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years in respect of Forestry Commission holdings sold to the private sector; and what percentage of total sales these figures represent.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is responsible for state forestry in
  259
  Northern Ireland. It has not entered into any public access arrangements in respect of woodland areas disposed of in the past three years. All such disposals during this period were in isolated localities, were small in size and were of no recreational significance.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to seek to allow local authorities in Northern Ireland additional powers and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 11 January 1993]: I have no such plans. However, the Government believe that there is considerable scope to transfer greater power, authority and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland and would be willing to give serious consideration to any proposals regarding future arrangements for regional or local government in Northern Ireland which seemed likely to prove widely acceptable. These issues are best considered in the comprehensive context of further political talks.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the total expenditure on(a) green form assistance, (b) legal aid for civil cases and (c) legal aid for criminal cases that will be authorised in 1993–94 (i) in England and (ii) in the Yorkshire region on the assumption that the current eligibility rules continue to apply and also on the assumption that the new eligibility criteria which were proposed at the time of the autumn statement are introduced on 1 April.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only estimates available for 1993–94 are those for England and Wales as a whole. For England and Wales it is estimated that following the abolition of contributory green form assistance, £138.7 million will be spent on legal advice and assistance in 1993–94; £142.4 million would be spent if there were no changes to financial eligibility. It is estimated that £508.7 million will be spent on civil legal aid in 1993–94 and that £548.2 million would be spent if there were no changes to financial eligibility. The changes will have little effect on total expenditure on criminal legal aid which it is estimated will be £570 million in 1993–94.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate for England and for the Yorkshire region the number of applications for(a) green form assistance and (b) civil legal aid that will be approved in 1992–93; and how many would be eligible under the new rules.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For England and Wales as a whole it is estimated that in 1992–93, a total of 1,461,000 bills will be paid for legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme and that 413,000 civil legal aid certificates will be issued. For the Yorkshire and Humberside region, not including Hambledon, Richmond, Ryedale or Scarborough, it is estimated that in 1992–93, 120,000 bills will be paid for advice and assistance under the green form scheme and that 40,000 civil legal aid 260
  certificates will be issued. It is not possible to estimate how many of these green form bills would have been paid, or these civil legal aid certificates issued, had the new eligibility limits been in force.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate for England and for the Yorkshire region the number of applications for(a) green form assistance and (b) civil legal aid that will be approved in 1993–94 (i) on the assumption that the current eligibility rules are unchanged and (ii) on the assumption that the new eligibility criteria proposed at the time of the autumn statement are introduced on 1 April; and if he will estimate how many of those receiving legal aid under the new criteria would receive less aid in cash terms than they would have received under the old rules.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only estimates available for 1993–94 are those for England and Wales as a whole. It is estimated that in 1993–94 under the current financial eligibility regulations, 1,548,000 bills for legal advice and assistance under the green form scheme would have been paid, and that 452,000 civil legal aid certificates would have been issued. Under the new regulations it is estimated that around 1,400,000 green form bills will be paid and 333,000 civil legal aid certificates will be issued. It is not possible to estimate the number of people who will receive less aid in cash terms under the new criteria.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many papers withheld at the Public Record Office have been subsequently released after review by the Lord Chancellor's advisory council in each year since 1979.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Advisory Council on Public Records has a role in considering and commenting on applications to the Lord Chancellor by Departments for the extended closure of public records, that is, beyond the statutory period of 30 years after their creation. It has never reviewed records after they have been closed.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Physics Departments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has made to the representations made to him by the Institute of Physics concerning the maintenance of the dual support system for physics departments not currently considered to be in the top rank.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The president of the Institute of Physics wrote to the chief scientific adviser on 17 November with the institute's views on the forthcoming science and technology White Paper. These included comments on the operation of the dual support system. The chief scientific adviser replied on 27 November thanking him for the institute's comments, which will be considered in preparing the White Paper.

  Copies of the institute's comments were placed in the Library of the House on 18 December.

ENVIRONMENT

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department is making in discussions with interested parties concerning development of alternatives to lead shot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department set up a working group with interested parties on 31 October 1991 to develop a programme for introducing non-toxic shot and phasing-out lead shot in wetland areas.

  The group has concluded that a target for commercial quantities of non-toxic shot for 12-bore shotguns to be available by September 1995 is feasible. The group intends that the majority of lead shooting over wetlands should be phased-out by September 1997; a ban on lead shot could operate from that date. The group will continue to pursue these objectives.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used in assessing applications for grants under the rough sleeping initiative.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grants under the rough sleepers initiative in central London are given at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Projects are assessed against their value in meeting the policy objectives of the initiative. Capital projects comply with the standards laid down in the Housing Corporation's published schemework procedure guide and the value for money criteria published in the corporation's total cost indicator and grant rate circular.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount of grant received by each organisation under the rough sleeping initiative.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will write to my hon. Friend about this shortly.

  Parliamentary Alternative Energy Group
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with the parliamentary alternative energy group; and what meetings he has planned with the parliamentary alternative energy group in the current year.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment attended a reception organised by the parliamentary alternative energy group at the House of Commons on Monday 14 December 1992. He has no plans at present to meet the group this year.

  Peatlands
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward new measures to safeguard lowland peatlands of nature conservation importance in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  A working group on peat extraction comprising representatives of the main interested parties is preparing advice for my right hon. and learned Friend.262
  The Government strategy for peatlands will be announced after receiving the working group's advice and considering all other relevant information.

  Environmental Inspectorates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to propose that a meeting of each EC nation's environmental inspectorate will also include the environmental authorities of central and eastern European nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government attach importance to improving the quality of inspection through, inter alia, exchanging information and experience. To this end, in November last year, the United Kingdom presidency launched the network of EC environmental enforcement agencies. The value of participation in the network by central and east European countries can be assessed in due course when we have had more experience of how the network is working and taking account of other options that may be available. The Department is already providing some advice and assistance to central and east European inspectorates through the environmental know-how fund.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what form he intends to publish the responses received from the first consultation exercise on contaminated land; if he will place a copy of all responses in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are still considering the way forward on proposals for registers of land which may be contaminated which have been the subject of two consultation exercises. Copies of responses to both consultation exercises will be placed in the Library when we have announced our decisions.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used in assessing applications for grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grant under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 is given at the discretion of the Secretary of State against criteria set out each year in notes for the guidance of applicants. I have today placed in the Library a copy of the guidance notes for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount of grant received by each organisation under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today placed in the Library a list showing grants to homelessness voluntary organisations in England under the main section 73 grant programme in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Drinking Water (Lead)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to introduce World Health Organisation standards for lead in drinking water; and if he will take steps to eradicate lead from drinking water supplies.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering whether any changes are needed in the light of the revised guidelines that the World Health Organisation is expected to publish later in the year.

  Housing, Sandwell
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new homes will be provided by Sandwell metropolitan borough authority in 1993–94; what is the total provision from central funds which will be received by the authority in support of capital expenditure on housing; and what capital expenditure he expects the authority to incur next year.

  Mr. Baldry
  The level of local authority housing capital expenditure in Sandwell in 1993–94, and priorities within the capital programme for that year, are matters for the council to decide in the light of available resources. Sandwell's housing investment programme allocation for 1993–94 is £21,554,000. Further resources for 1993–94 could be made available to Sandwell from housing special programmes.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the planning laws relating to car boot sales.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department issued a public consultation paper—"Temporary Uses of Land, External

  Numbers employed in local authorities in Hampshire At June of each year

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Authority

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Hampshire County

  29,205

  27,295

  29,515

  27,836

  27,775

  28,324

  27,604

  27,827

  27,796

  27,070

  28,150

  27,907

  Basingstoke

  655

  49

  669

  45

  687

  35

  714

  42

  723

  40

  683

  41

  East Hampshire

  418

  78

  379

  95

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  462

  221

  369

  198

  Eastleigh

  481

  63

  489

  75

  537

  86

  512

  82

  436

  106

  399

  86

  Fareham

  495

  46

  493

  47

  504

  45

  506

  59

  508

  64

  487

  68

  Gosport

  479

  143

  464

  143

  470

  150

  490

  160

  449

  147

  365

  148

  Hart

  300

  45

  306

  59

  286

  63

  297

  64

  306

  69

  278

  48

  Havant

  694

  142

  688

  164

  676

  157

  659

  172

  640

  177

  629

  205

  New Forest

  722

  175

  676

  192

  713

  212

  752

  207

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Portsmouth

  2,312

  502

  2,307

  569

  2,304

  548

  2,291

  520

  2,141

  511

  2,083

  536

  Rushmoor

  614

  90

  584

  84

  606

  83

  617

  90

  610

  90

  585

  97

  Southampton

  2,322

  208

  N/A

  N/A

  2,243

  285

  2,271

  302

  2,226

  350

  2,153

  358

  Test Valley

  566

  176

  547

  190

  549

  188

  547

  196

  541

  197

  542

  198

  Winchester

  552

  94

  581

  80

  605

  147

  618

  170

  649

  178

  614

  125

  N/A= Data not available.

  Source: Joint Staffing Watch for England.

  Note: Education, passenger transport, fire services, police and social services are administered by Hampshire County Council. The other authorities shown are District Councils, which, amongst other services, administer housing and refuse collection.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the holding of a public inquiry before coming to a decision on whether the THORP at Sellafield should proceed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The regulatory authorities' consultation on their proposed draft authorisations for the Sellafield site, including THORP, ends on 25 January. The chief 264
  Lighting and Miscellaneous Amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988"—in August last year inviting views on the proper scope of permitted development rights for the temporary use of land, including the use of land for markets and car boot sales.

  More than 1,250 responses to the consultation paper have been received and are currently under consideration.

  Environmental Disasters
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to local authorities seeking to provide financial and other assistance to those whose homes are affected by environmental disasters of any kind.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Guidance issued by my Department and others covering a wide range of local authority functions may be relevant, depending on the circumstances. Local authorities have a general power to incur expenditure which is in the interests of and will bring direct benefit to their area or its inhabitants, and we expect them to make appropriate use of that discretion.

  Local Government Employment, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed(a) full time and (b) part time in local government in Hampshire in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the table for each authority in Hampshire. Totals have not been given because data for some authorities are not available centrally.

  inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will then consider whether there is a need to make changes to the draft authorisations in the light of comments received. Once they have decided whether, and if so how, the authorisations should be amended, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consider whether to afford a hearing in accordance with the terms of the legislation.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on the achievements of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Environment Council.

  Mr. Howard
  At the outset of our presidency I set a number of objectives. The first was to follow through the agreement reached at Rio and to begin to formulate the Community's response to them. This was to carried forward in many ways. Environment Ministers discussed the way forward at their informal meeting at Gleneagles in September following the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the eight-point strategy that he put to the Lisbon European Council in June. Development Ministers have also given priority to UNCED follow-up in their declaration on the future of development policy. Much of the work in Brussels over the last six months has also been about measures to help put into practice the agreements reached at Rio. Foremost among these has been the consideration and endorsement by the Council of the fifth environmental action programme, which will not only provide the blueprint for the Community's environmental policy up to the end of the century, but will constitute the basis for the Community's response to "Agenda 21".

  The second objective was to improve the integration of environmental considerations into other policy areas as the key to sustainable development. This is also a central theme of the fifth action programme, and reflects the strengthened text we had successfully negotiated into the Maastricht treaty.

  Improved integration is a long-term objective, but good progress was made over the last six months. The Government commissioned a widely acclaimed report from the Institute for European Environmental Policy and made the subject the centrepiece for ministerial discussion at the Informal Council, where useful ideas for improving integration at Community level were generated. These were reflected not only in the conclusions of that meeting, but in the Council resolution on the fifth action programme. The Department of the Environment also collaborated with other Departments to influence and monitor the activities of other EC policy areas. Environmental issues were discussed in eight different Councils during the United Kingdom presidency, and a number of special conferences linked to the integration theme were organised or supported.

  The third objective was to secure improvements in the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation across the Community. The Government secured significant achievements here. We hosted the first meeting of the network of environmental enforcement authorities, securing participation from all member states and agreeing terms of reference and a programme of work for the future. This should ensure that the network is now firmly established as a mechanism for improving standards across the Community through exchanges of information, personnel and ideas between environmental regulators. The Government also secured an undertaking from the Commission to produce regular reports for the Council of Ministers on the application of existing Community legislation in the member states, held a first formal debate on this subject at the December Council meeting, and obtained the Council's agreement that such debates should take place annually in future. The Government have
  266
  continued to press the Commission to bring forward proposals for a Community body to audit the application of EC environmental legislation, and have secured growing support from other member states for this idea.

  The Government also made progress on a broad range of detailed measures in the Council.

  Waste: agreement was finally reached on a regulation controlling the movement of waste within, into and out of the Community. This important and hard-won agreement opens the way for Community ratification of the Basel convention on trade in hazardous waste.

  Ozone layer: a regulation was agreed accelerating the phase-out dates for the production and consumption within the Community of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

  Vehicle emissions: agreement was reached on stringent emission standards for vans and other light-duty vehicles to fill the gap between those already agreed for cars and for heavy-duty vehicles.

  Fifth action programme: the Council agreed a resolution setting out its response to the Commission's fifth environmental action programme, which maps out a broad strategy for the Community's environment policy until the end of the century. The resolution included a passage taking account of the Edinburgh European Council conclusions on subsidiarity which will now guide Community environment policy.

  Eco-Audit Scheme: broad agreement was reached on a Community eco-management and audit scheme, the aim of which is to encourage effective environmental management of industrial sites and regular public reporting of their environmental impacts.

  Climate change: discussions were taken forward on all elements of the Commission's proposals for Community action. The proposed carbon/energy tax was discussed by Finance Ministers and remitted to experts for further work on a number of specific questions. The Energy Council discussed the draft directive on energy-saving measures and agreed new measures on the exploitation of renewable energy sources. Environment Ministers made good progress towards agreement on a mechanism for monitoring national programmes on greenhouse gas emissions.

  Endangered species: good progress was made towards agreeing a workable basis for strict new Community controls on the wildlife trade. Member states' concerns about the complexity of the Commission's original proposals have largely been overcome.

  Packaging: a good start was made in discussions on new Commission proposals for a directive on packaging and packaging waste.

  Air pollution: the Council formally adopted a directive on air pollution by ozone, and work was started on two new measures concerning emissions from hazardous waste incineration and evaporative emissions from petrol distribution.

  In addition, the Government made strenous efforts to overcome the blockages which have prevented the establishment of the European Environment Agency. Although it proved impossible to obtain agreement on a site during the course of the presidency, there is every indication that the main obstacles have now been removed, and that agreement should be possible under the Danish presidency. In the meantime, we worked closely

  267
  with the Commission to identify tasks which could usefully be set in hand in the interim to anticipate the future work and needs of the agency.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside and I also represented the Community as presidency at several international meetings such as the UN general assembly in October and the Copenhagen meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol in November. Officials from my Department also spoke for the Community and chaired Community co-ordination meetings as appropriate at various international meetings held at official level.

  This represents a substantial record of achievement during the six months of our presidency. We achieved the objectives which we set ourselves at the outset, and worked hard to carry forward the environmental protection policies of the Community efficiently and effectively during our term of office. The Government look forward to further progress under the Danish presidency.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of 14 January by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner),Official Report, columns 1075–76, to what categories of questions regarding the security service Ministers are now willing to provide substantive replies.

  The Prime Minister
  As I said in my statement to the House on 6 May last year, at column 65, successive Governments have not commented on matters relating to security and intelligence. The reason for that is clear: it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is said or not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness of these services and the safety of their staff.

  Nevertheless, from time to time there will be matters of public concern on which it is desirable and possible to make a considered statement. There are precedents under successive Administrations when such statements have been made without prejudice to the general convention. An example is the assurance which I gave hon. Members on 29 June 1992, Official Report, column 37, about postal and telephone interception.

  UN Aims Register
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with setting up a United Nations arms register.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The register was established by a UN general assembly resolution in December 1991. In December 1992 the general assembly approved by consensus a report by technical experts on the register's implementation. Participating countries are required to provide their first returns of information by 30 April 1993 covering arms imports and exports in the calendar year 1992. The Secretary-General will produce an annual report containing the information registered which will be available for consultation by member states.

  Royal Family (Telephone Tapping)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the tapping of telephones of members of the royal family or their personal friends.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The interception of communications during their transmission by means of a public telephone system is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The Government have accepted Sir David Calcutt's recommendation to consider whether the legislation adequately protects private telephone calls. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage assured the House in his statement on 14 January, there is no substance to rumours about the involvement of the security and intelligence agencies in interception of the communications of the royal family.

  Intergovernmental Binding Decisions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 December 1992,Official Report, column 37, what are the criteria distinguishing an intergovernmental binding decision and treaty if both are justiciable in the International Court of Justice.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 January, at column 822.

TRANSPORT

  English Channel
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action is taken at the time, or subsequently, if a vessel is observed to be violating the rules for preventing collisions in the English channel;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the rules for preventing collisions in the English channel and the policing of the rules by radar or otherwise.

  Mr. Norris
  The channel traffic separation scheme, coupled with radar surveillance by the United Kingdom and France of traffic in the Dover strait, has been effective in reducing the level of accidents in the area by over 85 per cent. Where there is evidence of a contravention of the rules, appropriate follow-up action will be taken by the Department which may include prosecution.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses have been received to date on his Department's consultation paper on speed limits; and how many such representations have advocated the fitting of speed limiters on cars.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A total of 142 responses were received and six advocated the fitting of speed limiters to cars.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will invite Steve Wright of BBC Radio 1 to assist the campaign to raise awareness of the effect of greater speed on pedestrian fatalities.
  269
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department always looks to enlist the media's support for its publicity campaigns to reduce road casualties. Radio 1 has been particularly helpful in pressing home the messages of recent Christmas drink-drive campaigns. We are currently drawing up our campaign plans for 1993 and look forward to their continuing support.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available copies of all papers presented to the Council of Ministers and European Commission and the individual directorates general by his Department relating to the development of(a) transport link projects between Wales and Ireland, (b) the trans-European transport network and (c) the INTERREG programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Over a period of many years my Department and others have contributed to the EC Commission's work on transport links between Wales and Ireland and on trans-European networks in the context of the European regional development fund, the series of EC transport infrastructure programmes and, more recently, the development of networks guidelines for transport. It would not be possible at reasonable cost to identify all the papers in question: there is also the difficulty that in some cases the material may contain commercially sensitive information. INTERREG, an EC initiative on cross-border co-operation under the structural funds, is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement outlining his Department's policy on the establishment of trans-European networks; and what representations he has made to the European Community concerning prioritisation for the development of such routes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As one of the signatories to that treaty, the Government support the provisions of Maastricht, including the articles on trans-European networks for transport, energy and telecommunications. With other member states, we are now contributing to the Commission's work in drafting network guidelines for various transport modes.

  British Rail (Concessionary Travel)
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he intends to make to safeguard concessionary travel arrangements for employees, and their dependants, and for retired staff on the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  We intend to take powers in the forthcoming Railways Bill to ensure that future passenger service operators may be compelled to provide travel facilities so as to protect the benefits currently enjoyed by BR staff, pensioners and their dependants. The regulator will be enabled to impose conditions in operators' licences requiring them to honour these existing travel facilities. Successor employers of present BR staff will be under an obligation to secure such facilities because the obligation will be preserved when those staff transfer from BR.270
  Pensioners and their dependants, and others with preserved facilities, will continue to enjoy the travel facilities which they have now.

  Railway Pensions
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the paper on railway pensions to which he referred on 12 January,Official Report, column 794.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am publishing the paper today and have placed copies in the Library. It confirms that there should be a joint industry pension scheme to succeed the present BR open scheme; that there should be arrangements to ensure that pensions to which present railway staff are now entitled are safeguarded; and that their future pension benefits should be no less favourable than in the present BR scheme. It also invites comments on two alternative arrangements proposed to secure the rights of railway pensioners and on other proposals made in the paper.

  Hereford Bypass
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) English Nature, (b) the Herefordshire nature trust and (c) the Council for the Protection of Rural England regarding the environmental impact of the published route for the A49–465 Hereford bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All three bodies submitted written representations concerning the environmental impact of the scheme, in particular on the Lugg meadows site of special scientific interest.

  In addition, the Herefordshire nature trust and the CPRE appeared at the public inquiry which opened in 1991. Both these groups put forward alternative routes to that proposed by the Department.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what total area of farmland would suffer from severance under(a) the published route for the A49–465 Hereford bypass and (b) the western alternative route 1C; what proportion of the area in each case would be (i) grade 1, (ii) grade 2 and (iii) grade 3a; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The total area of farmland to be severed is not readily available. MAFF's evidence to the public inquiry gave as the prime reason for their support of the eastern route the view that the western route options traverse more of the best quality land than the eastern options and the former would also result in the isolation of significant pockets of very high quality land inside the western bypass line.

  The areas of farmland required for the scheme, in the grades requested are:

  Published Route hectares

  Alternative 1C hectares

  Grade 1

  1.1

  5.2

  Grade 2

  22.6

  20.0

  Grade 3a

  29.2

  15.8

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the lengths of(a) the published route

  271
  for the A49–465 Hereford bypass and (b) the western alternative route 1C; what are the (i) estimated construction costs and (ii) vehicle travelling times for both HGV and other vehicles, of each of the two routes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The length of the published route is 13.6 km, 8.4 miles. The length of the alternative route 1C is 9.15 km, 5.7 miles.

  The estimated construction cost, excluding land, at Q2/1992 prices for the published route is £28.2 million. The cost of alternative route 1C is £21.1 million.

  Vehicle travelling times are:

  HGVs minutes

  Other vehicles minutes

  Published Route

  11.10

  9.04

  Alternative 1C

  7.84

  6.36

  These times are based on speeds for HGVs of 64 kph, 40 mph, on single carriageways and 80 kph, 50 mph, on dual carriageways. Speeds for other vehicles are 80 kph, 50 mph, on single carriageways and 97 kph, 60 mph, on dual carriageways.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the distances and travelling times expected for(a) HGV vehicles and (b) other vehicles starting from a common point on the A49 north and ending at a common point on the A465 south (South Wales) along (i) the inner ring road through Hereford, (ii) the published route for the A49–A465 Hereford bypass and (iii) the western alternative route 1C; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The distances and travelling times are as follows:

  Length

  HGV times (minutes)

  Other vehicle times (minutes)

  (i) Inner Ring Road

  8.61 km (5.3 m)

  11.78

  (ii) Published route

  14.48 km (9.0 m)

  12.13

  9.85

  (iii) Alternative 1C

  8.15 km (5.0 m)

  6.91

  5.73

  Journey times for HGVs on the existing road are not available as surveys were not undertaken. However, in general terms in an urban area these can be expected to be considerably longer than for other vehicles.

  Chicago (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of the recent ministerial visit to Chicago; who went; and what was studied.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to confirm that the total cost of the recent visit to Chicago was not £25,000 as reported by the Evening Standard, but just under £7,000. I can only assume the £25,000 estimate was based on at least one journalist's attempt to justify his own expenses.
  272
  I visited Chicago to look at the city's system of parking enforcement and adjudication prior to a new system being introduced in London. I also took the opportunity to see traffic control and information systems, incident management on freeways and an in-vehicle route guidance system, and held meetings with the mayor, the city aviation commissioner and the head of the regional transit authority.

  I was accompanied by my private secretary and three other officials from the Department.

WALES

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the completion date of the third River Dee crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Transport grant approval has been given for a start to be made in 1994–95. The scheme is expected to take approximately two and a half years to complete. The precise start date will be a matter for Clwyd county council to determine following the transport grant settlement for 1994–95 which will be announced towards the end of the year.

  Forestry Commission (Asset Sales)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each area of Forestry Commission land in Wales by county hectarage and location sold to the private sector during each of the last five years and the total receipts, by county, accruing to the commission from such sales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission in the four years from 1988 to 1991 are held in the Library of the House. A similar list is being prepared of the areas of forest land sold in 1992 and I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  The receipts from sales of forest land are not recorded by county, but the total receipts for Wales in each of the last five financial years are as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Receipts £000

  1988

  871

  1989

  1,527

  1990

  1,786

  1991

  1,956

  1992

  2,179

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current policy in respect of the sale of Forestry Commission assets in Wales; and if he will list those forest areas currently available for sale to the private sector.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 June 1989.

  The following areas of forest land in Wales are at present being offered for sale on the open market:
  273

  County and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Dyfed

  Allt Crychdu

  18

  Allt Fawr

  7

  Allt Llwyn Dyfrion

  11

  Allt Pistyll Dewi

  33

  Allt Pwll Priddog

  18

  Allt Tir Isaf

  5

  Allt y Fergwm

  23

  Brynwicket

  8

  Bwlch Newydd

  8

  Bylchau Duon

  62

  Careg Fadog

  6

  Cilfowyr

  3

  Coed Cwm Saethe

  5

  Coed Ffridd Cwmere

  20

  Coed Gwastad

  28

  Coedmore, Coad Newydd

  17

  Coed Rhosan

  5

  Coed y Gorof

  7

  Cresselly Big Wood

  48

  Cwmcroiddur

  7

  Cwmfran Fawr

  3

  Cwm Gwachel

  15

  Cwnheidre Uchaf

  24

  Erryd Wood

  5

  Fforest

  22

  Ffynon Le Frith

  25

  Glanteifi

  3

  Glaspant

  4

  Glebe Woods

  17

  Hafod Iwan

  32

  Knightson Bottom

  15

  Llwyn y Gwair

  14

  Lon Isaf

  7

  Maestwynog

  12

  North Wood

  27

  Pant y Gaseg

  3

  Pencwm Fawr

  9

  Penhill Wood

  4

  Penrallt Ddu

  13

  Pont Eynon and Allt y Forlan

  29

  Pont Henri

  14

  Portis Pant

  30

  Prycemoor

  5

  Rams Wood

  26

  Rhos Geler

  9

  Scolton

  30

  Sunnyhill Wood

  9

  Tanyrallt

  6

  The Coombes

  6

  Trevane Wood

  10

  Troserch

  35

  Tynton Wood

  4

  Ty'r Shyme

  7

  Waun Baglan Woods

  26

  Wenallt

  17

  Gwent

  Craig y Merchant

  24

  Hafod Risclawdd

  23

  Luggas Wood and Youngs Grove

  15

  Gwynedd

  Bodfeddau

  10

  Coed Dyfi

  17

  Coed Ty Uchaf

  15

  Glyn Estate

  49

  Gwenfro Uchaf

  7

  Irby

  4

  Parc Main

  6

  Tan y Graig

  3

  Powys

  Allt Cwm Tywyll

  6

  Craig Yr Henffordd

  8

  Cwmbach and Cwmcoch

  44

  Great Wood

  9

  274

  County and Name

  Area (hectares)

  Pwll Llydan

  31

  South Glamorgan

  Breach Wood

  9

  West Glamorgan

  Craig Ynysgollen

  10

  Gelligaer

  33

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what evidence he has that a public access requirement diminishes the market value of Forestry Commission assets in Wales on offer of sale to the public sector;

  (2) if he will list each area of Forestry Commission land in Wales sold to the private sector over the last five years in respect of which public access agreements have been made.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The arrangements for securing continued public access to woodland sold by the Forestry Commission were introduced in October 1991. They have not been in operation long enough to assess what effect they might have on market values. Only five of the woodland areas considered under these arrangements have been sold so far. None of the sales was subject to an access agreement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy in respect of the maintenance of public access to Forestry Commission land sold to the private sector; what steps he has taken to ensure the implementation of this policy; and what assessment he has made of its efficacy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland on 21 November 1990, columns 164–66. The arrangements to implement the policy were introduced in October 1991 and are scheduled to be reviewed at the end of this year.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning the incidence of TB in humans, by county in Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of notifications of incidents of tuberculosis made to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for each of the last five years are shown in the following table.

  Notifications of tuberculosis

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1 1991

  Clwyd

  22

  19

  16

  28

  30

  Dyfed

  28

  21

  20

  32

  31

  Gwent

  44

  25

  33

  20

  20

  Gwynedd

  21

  33

  23

  26

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  45

  37

  49

  22

  21

  Powys

  4

  1

  3

  3

  0

  South Glamorgan

  44

  37

  37

  36

  45

  West Glamorgan

  24

  28

  28

  27

  13

  1 Provisional.

  Source: OPCS.

  Alcohol and Drugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish a table showing the total grant paid by his Department(a) in total, (b) in revenue and (c) in capital towards the provision of (1) residential facilities and (2) non-residential facilities for (i) people with alcohol problems and (ii) people with drug problems in each of the past five years;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the total grant available from his Department (a) in total, (b) in revenue and (c) in capital towards the provision of (1) residential facilities and (2) non-residential facilities for (i) people with alcohol problems and (ii) people with drug problems in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Funds for drug and alcohol projects are provided directly and indirectly from the Welsh Office from a number of sources. In part they are provided from small specific budgets: others are disbursed by health authorities, either from moneys specifically allocated—some £3 million in 1992–93—or from their general allocations. Details of individual allocations funded from all these sources could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the bodies in Wales to which(a) he nominates members at present and (b) to which he nominated members in 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 30 October 1992, column 866–905, listing current appointments I have made to public bodies in Wales. Comparable information for 1979 is not available.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance sent to the chairmen of national health service trusts in relation to the salaries of directors of trusts and increases thereof in 1993.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the two guidance letters sent to trust chairmen in November.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with representatives of the football pools industry and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers about the proposed national lottery; and what conclusions were reached.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 15 January 1993]: I met representatives of the Pools Promoters Association on 9 December 1992, when they put forward a list of changes that they would like to see to their regulatory regime. I look forward to continuing the debate as the Bill progresses. I am not conscious of any approach for a meeting from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Police Complaints Authority to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 1 to 5 February 1993.

  Testicular Cancer
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to early detection of testicular cancer to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 29 March to 2 April 1993.

  Old People
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations 1993 to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 22 to 26 February 1993.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to ensure that, after 1993, Her Majesty's inspectorate will inspect all institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council in the same way.

  Mr. Boswell
  Her Majesty's inspectorate ceased to have responsibility for inspection in higher education in England on 1 September 1992. That responsibility, extended to the established universities, now rests with the Higher Education Funding Council for England which plans shortly to issue a circular on its approach to the assessment of teaching quality.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for the latest full year for which figures are available, for all institutions funded for taught courses by the Universities Funding Council(a) the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled upon degree-level courses, (b) the total funding for teaching received from the Universities Funding Council, (c) the proportion of that institution's total public funding received from the Universities Funding Council and (d) the proportion of full-time equivalent students at the institution following non-degree courses.
  277
  Mr. Boswell
  Statistics on funding and enrolments of higher education courses are contained in "Funding and Enrolments 1991–92", an information document published by PCFC in November 1992, a copy of which is in the Library. For the first time, in respect of 1991–92, all PCFC institutions will be completing a finance return. This will indicate the public funds received from the council and from other public sources. Results from this survey will be available during the next three months and will be published this summer.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for the latest full year for which figures are available, all institutions funded for taught courses by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council(a) the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled upon degree-level courses, (b) the total funding for teaching received from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, (c) the proportion of that institution's total public funding received from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and (d) the proportion of full-time equivalent students at the institution following non-degree courses.

  Mr. Boswell
  Statistics on funding and enrolments on higher education courses are contained in "Funding and Enrolments 1991–92", an information document published by PCFC in November 1992, a copy of which is in the Library. For the first time, in respect of 1991–92, all PCFC institutions will be completing a finance return. This will indicate the public funds received from the council and from other public sources. Results from this survey will be available during the next three months and will be published this summer.

  Degree-level Education
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he will take to ensure that, under the proposed arrangements after April, the validation and quality of degree-level education provided will be assessed in precisely the same way for all institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Higher Education Quality Council is undertaking a programme of academic audits of all degree awarding institutions. These audits will scrutinise the quality assurance systems of institutions, including any validation arrangements for non-degree awarding institutions, and report on their operation. The council will also advise the Secretary of State on applications from non-degree awarding institutions for degree awarding powers. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will be undertaking a programme of quality assessments. All these activities will be undertaken in a way which ensures comparability.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for the latest year available and for every institution funded by the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, the proportion of students admitted to degree-level courses who have successfully completed that course.

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of leavers from the old universities are given in table 10 of "University Management Statistics and Performance indicators", 1992 edition, published by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the 278
  University Funding Council, a copy of which is in the Library. Aggregate data for the former polytechnics and colleges are shown in the Department for Education statistical bulletin 9/92, which is also in the Library. The next Department for Education departmental report will contain a table showing that approximately 15 per cent. of all full-time and sandwich first degree students did not successfully complete their course.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list the authorities authorised to award degrees for the taught courses which commenced in September 1992 at each of the institutions funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council or the Universities Funding Council;

  (2) if he will list the authorities authorised to award degrees for the research courses which commenced in September 1992 at each of the institutions funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council or the Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following institutions, funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council or the Universities Funding Council, are authorised to award both taught course and research degrees:

  University of Aberdeen

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  Aston University

  University of Bath

  University of Birmingham

  Bournemouth University

  University of Bradford

  University of Brighton

  University of Bristol

  Brunel University

  University of Cambridge

  University of Central England in Birmingham

  University of Central Lancashire

  City University

  Coventry University

  De Montfort University

  University of Derby

  University of Dundee

  University of Durham

  University of East Anglia

  University of East London

  University of Edinburgh

  University of Essex

  University of Exeter

  University of Glasgow

  University of Greenwich

  Heriot-Watt University

  University of Hertfordshire

  University of Huddersfield

  University of Hull

  University of Humberside

  University of Keele

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  Kingston University

  University of Lancaster

  University of Leeds

  Lees Metropolitan University

  University of Leicester

  University of Liverpool

  Liverpool John Moore University

  University of London

  London Business School

  London Guildhall University

  Loughborough University of Technology

  University of Manchester

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  Middlesex University

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  University of North London

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  University of Nottingham

  279

  The Nottingham Trent University

  University of Oxford

  Oxford Brookes University

  University of Plymouth

  University of Portsmouth

  University of Reading

  Royal College of Music

  University of St. Andrews

  University of Salford

  University of Sheffield

  Sheffield Hallam University

  University of Southampton

  South Bank University

  Staffordshire University

  University of Stirling

  University of Strathclyde

  University of Sunderland

  University of Surrey

  University of Sussex

  University of Teeside

  Thames Valley University

  University of Wales

  University of Warwick

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  University of Westminster

  University of Wolverhampton

  University of York

  The following institutions, funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, are authorised to award taught course degrees only:

  Bath College of Higher Education

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

  Luton College of Higher Education

  West Surrey College of Art and Design

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those official publications in which potential undergraduate and research students may inform themselves of the list of colleges in receipt of funding from the Higher Education Funding Council, together with associated relevant information about degree-level courses.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department published last year a leaflet, "Higher Education: A New Framework", which lists all higher education colleges which are to be funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Information on courses is available in the "Guide for Applicants" available from the polytechnics central admission system and a number of commercially published compendia. Copies of both named publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for the latest year available and for every institution funded by the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, the proportion of mature students admitted to degree-level courses funded by those institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of mature students in United Kingdom universities and in other higher education institutions in England are shown in volume 1—students and staff—of "University Statistics 1990–91" published by the Universities Statistical Record, and statistical bulletin 19/92, "Students in Higher Education, England 1990", published by the Department. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he intends to take this year to ensure that prospective students entering degree-level courses in September 1993 are fully aware that the quality of degree 280
  courses offered by institutions which are not permitted to designate themselves as universities is comparable to that provided by institutions which are.

  Mr. Boswell
  All institutions that offer degrees have appropriate quality assurance mechanisms in place irrespective of whether they have "university" in their title. The Department's leaflet, "Higher Education: A New Framework", sets this out.

  Truancy
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement regarding his policy on(a) parents removing children from school during term time for reasons other than illness or bereavement and (b) his plans to reduce truancy levels in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for individual schools to determine whether a given absence should be treated as authorised or unauthorised in the light of the particular circumstances of each case. My right hon. Friend attaches particular importance to maintaining high levels of attendance in our schools. To this end, schools are now required to publish their rates of unauthorised absence in their prospectuses and annual reports and this information will also be figuring in local comparative tables of school performance from this year onwards. To improve attendance at schools with high truancy levels, we have recently announced support for projects in 64 English local education authorities to a total value of £8.6 million under the "Reducing Truancy" programme of the grants for education support and training scheme for 1993–94.

  Colleges
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all those institutions of which he is aware which now designate themselves colleges of further and higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  On the basis of the list of institutions which have been incorporated under sections 15 and 16 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the information requested is as follows:

  Bromley College of Further and Higher Education

  Havering College of Further and Higher Education

  Matthew Boulton College of Further and Higher Education, Birmingham

  Norwich City College of Further and Higher Education

  Sandwell College of Further and Higher Education

  Stockport College of Further and Higher Education

  York College of Further and Higher Education

  Yorkshire Coast College of Further and Higher Education, Scarborough

  Research Courses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for the latest full year for which figures are available, for all institutions funded for research from the research councils, Government Departments and other public sources(a) the number of researchers at the college, (b) the total public research funding received by the institution and (c) the proportion of that institution's total research funding received from public sources.

  Mr. Boswell
  The latest details of research income received by each university in the United Kingdom were shown by source in "University Statistics 1989–90—
  281
  Volume 3 (Finance)", published by the Universities' Statistical Record in February 1992. The latest details of the number of staff engaged in research only at each university were shown in "University Statistics 1990–91 —Volume 1 (Students and staff)", published in November 1992. Copies of both are available in the Library. Comparable information is not available for the former polytechnics and colleges funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Boswell
  Six contracts were awarded by the Department for Education to KPMG Management Consulting in the 12 months to 31 December 1992:

  (a) Market testing programme for the Department.

  1(b) Financial Management Review of Research Council contracts with other Government Departments.

  (c) Review of Data Collection Processing System.

  (d) Customer Survey (Teachers' Pensions Agency).

  (e) Follow up to the Customer Survey (Teachers' Pensions Agency).

  (f) Assessment of the Pensions Administration System project (Teachers' Pensions Agency).

  1 Under the Department of Education and Science.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give details of the names and addresses of the organisations which are on his register of voluntary youth organisations eligible for grants under a special London scheme; if he will give details of the grants given to each organisation in the years(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and what has been achieved by the grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Londonwide education voluntary organisations that benefited from the Department's three-year interim scheme, and the levels of grant awarded are listed in the table; their addresses have been placed in the Library. These special grants enabled the organisations concerned to sustain their work during a three-year transition period following the abolition of the ILEA.

  Londonwide education voluntary organizations in receipt of special grants 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Association of Combined Youth Clubs

  12,600

  12,600

  12,600

  Association of Jewish Youth

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Boys Brigade

  7,600

  7,600

  7,600

  Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council

  7,200

  7,500

  7,500

  Diocese of London Lay Ministry

  10,800

  10,800

  10,800

  Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Friends for the Young Deaf

  7,600

  7,600

  7,600

  Girl Guides Association

  20,700

  20,700

  20,700

  Greater London Central Scout Association

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Handicapped Adventure Playground Association

  19,800

  21,400

  21,400

  Inner-London Pre-school Playgroups Association

  66,500

  66,500

  66,500

  282

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  London Youth Matters

  26,100

  26,700

  26,700

  Inter-Action

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  London Adventure Playground Association

  51,500

  51,800

  51,800

  London Federation of Boys Clubs

  61,200

  61,800

  61,800

  London Union of Youth Clubs

  54,900

  56,500

  56,500

  London Voluntary Services Council

  18,000

  13,000

  13,000

  Methodist Association of Youth Clubs

  7,200

  7,200

  7,200

  National Federation of Gateway Clubs

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Parents in Partnership

  5,000

  5,800

  5,800

  PHAB

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster

  5,000

  3,400

  3,400

  SENSE

  12,100

  12,100

  12,100

  Southwark Catholic Youth Service

  18,900

  19,700

  19,700

  Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

  12,600

  12,600

  12,600

  United Reformed Church

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Volunteer Reading Help

  5,000

  5,300

  5,300

  Woodcraft Folk

  10,800

  10,800

  10,800

  YWCA

  10,600

  10,600

  10,600

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the names and addresses of voluntary youth organisations which have received grants for programmes of work designed to promote the personal and social education of young people in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what has been achieved by the grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  Organisations which have been awarded grant under the Department's scheme for national voluntary youth organizations—NVY0s—during 1991–92 and 1992–93 are listed in the table; their addresses have been placed in the Library. The grants have helped to promote the planned personal and social education of young people in priority areas including work with young people at risk, those from ethnic minorities, and those with disabilities; curriculum development work in areas such as health education and social education; and work to increase the operational efficiency of organisations and promote management training.

  NVYOs in receipt of grant during 1991–92 and 1992–93

  Association for Jewish Youth

  Baptist Union of Great Britain

  Boys Brigade

  British Red Cross

  British Youth Council

  Campaigners

  Catholic Youth Services

  Church Army

  Church of England Board of Education

  Church Lads and Church Girls Brigade

  Council for Environmental Education

  Deaf Accord

  Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme

  Endeavour

  Fairbridge

  Forest School Camps

  Frontier Youth Trust

  Girl Guides Association

  Girls Brigade

  Inter-Action

  Jewish Lads and Girls Brigade

  283

  Methodist Association of Youth Clubs

  National Association of Boys Clubs

  National Association of Muslim Youth

  National Association of Youth Theatres

  National Council of YMCAs

  National Federation of 18+ Groups

  National Federation of Gateway Clubs

  National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs

  National Organisation for Work with Girls/Young Women

  National Youth Choir

  National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain

  National Youth Theatre

  National Association of Young People's Counselling and

  Advisory Services (now Youth Access) (NAYPCAS)

  New Testament Church of God

  Ocean Youth Club

  Outward Bound Trust

  Physically Handicapped and Able-bodied (PHAB)

  Quaker Home Service

  Reform Synagogues of Great Britain

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

  Sail Training Association

  St John Ambulance Youth

  Salvation Army

  Scout Association

  Sea Cadet Association

  Single Parent Links and Special Holidays (SPLASH)

  United Kingdom Federation of Jazz Bands

  Union of Maccabi Associations

  United Reform Church

  Woodcraft Folk

  Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA)

  Young Christian Workers

  Young Muslim Organisation

  Youth Clubs United Kingdom

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia (No-fly Zone)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about Croatian air force activity in the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina in breach of UN resolution 781; what evidence exists that Croat flights are engaged in the smuggling of arms in breach of the international arms embargo; what representations have been made to the Government of Croatia on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UN Secretary-General has issued regular reports to the Security Council giving details of violations of the no-fly zone established by resolution 781 of 9 October and 786 of 11 November. It is clear from these that, to varying degrees, all parties in Bosnia Herzegovina, including the Croats, have conducted flights outside the terms permitted in the resolutions, some of which may have been used to smuggle arms. The total of unauthorised flights to 14 January was 377. The United Kingdom and other members of the Security Council have made a démarche to the Croatian Government representative at the United Nations.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which Bosnian-Serb aircraft have observed the provisions of UN Security Council resolution 781; and if he will support calls for enforcement of the no-fly zone.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UN Secretary-General has issued regular reports to the Security Council giving details of violations of the no-fly zone established by resolutions 284
  781 of 9 October and 786 of 11 November. It is clear from these that, to varying degrees, all parties in Bosnia Herzegovina, including the Bosnian Serbs, have conducted flights outside the terms permitted in the resolutions. The total of unauthorised flights to 14 January was 377. Members of the Security Council, including the United Kingdom, are currently considering a resolution on enforcement of the no-fly zone which will apply to all parties.

  Religious Freedom
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to persuade nations with which the United Kingdom trades and maintains diplomatic relations to allow freedom of religious expression and cease persecuting religious minorities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We take regular action on the question of religious intolerance, both on a bilateral basis and in conjunction with EC partners. We believe that action in international bodies is particularly effective on such matters. We are therefore active within the United Nations in ensuring that the international community continues to concentrate on these issues.

  CSCE
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the CSCE Council meeting in Stockholm of 15 and 16 December.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to the reply, 11 January 1993, c. 561]: The complete text of the answer to my hon. Friend is as follows:

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented the United Kingdom at the Council meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which took place on 14 and 15 December in Stockholm.

  The Stockholm meeting marked a further stage in the transition of the CSCE from an organisation primarily involved with setting standards of behaviour in the fields of human rights and international security to one whose task is also to prevent and if necessary end conflicts.

  The Council endorsed the work of the international conference of former Yugoslavia. It agreed a detailed policy intended to help prevent the spread of the fighting into other parts of the former Yugoslavia and to tighten sanctions. The CSCE missions in Kosova, Sandjak and Vojvodina will be reinforced.

  The Council took steps to promote long-term solutions to the conflict in Moldova. The CSCE will continue to press for agreements to be concluded on the early and complete withdrawal of foreign troops from the territories of the Baltic states and will also dispatch a mission to Estonia to address human rights issues between the different communities in Estonia.

  Despite intensive negotiations on Nagorno Karabakh, no progress was made on the declaration of a ceasefire, the dispatch of a CSCE monitoring mission or the convening of the Minsk conference.

  The Council strengthened the institutions and procedures of the CSCE in order to help deal with conflict in Europe. Following the Prime Minister's initiative at the Helsinki summit, it established the post of Secretary General, to be filled in 1993. Mr. Max van der Stoel was

  285
  appointed high commissioner on national minorities. The chairman in office will take steps to ensure co-ordination of CSCE activities with those of the United Nations.

  The CSCE's role as one of Europe's security institutions is now better defined and its organisation is evolving to enable it to meet its responsibilities more effectively. It will concentrate on standard setting and monitoring in the fields of human rights and relations between states and also on preventive diplomacy and action to end conflict in Europe. Together with our European partners, we shall continue to support it and work to make it more effective.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eggs
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration has been given to the marketing of eggs produced in the United Kingdom with a British produce label.

  Imports of eggs into United Kingdom (metric tonnes)

  November 1991

  December 1991

  January 1992

  February 1992

  March 1992

  April 1992

  May 1992

  June 1992

  July 1992

  August 1992

  September 1992

  October 1992

  France

  414

  392

  182

  140

  235

  178

  235

  159

  155

  271

  205

  147

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  210

  201

  65

  140

  190

  228

  251

  103

  119

  118

  106

  104

  Netherlands

  2,191

  1,788

  722

  596

  1,524

  1,448

  1,240

  1,059

  634

  1,304

  1,153

  510

  Germany

  294

  236

  162

  230

  422

  186

  336

  475

  338

  270

  354

  496

  Italy

  8

  12

  17

  10

  25

  8

  11

  7

  7

  8

  7

  —

  Irish Republic

  36

  38

  63

  76

  52

  43

  49

  45

  47

  41

  46

  55

  Denmark

  118

  178

  206

  122

  262

  141

  192

  331

  149

  106

  102

  120

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  3

  4

  —

  3

  4

  4

  3

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  United States of America

  13

  3

  14

  1

  17

  29

  29

  17

  5

  1

  14

  15

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Taiwan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Japan

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All imports

  3,287

  2,852

  1,431

  1,318

  2,731

  2,265

  2,347

  2,197

  1,460

  2,122

  1,989

  1,467

  Note:

  — = No trade.

  0 = Low value trade (less than 0.5 metric tonnes).

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks exist to ensure that imported eggs sold in the United Kingdom in pre-labelled packaging meet United Kingdom standards of size and quality marking.

  Mr. Curry
  Quality and size standards for eggs are laid down in the EC Egg Marketing Standards Regulations. These require all eggs, including eggs imported from other member states, to be subject to checking by means of random sampling at all stages of marketing. These checks are carried out by the egg marketing inspectorate in England and Wales and equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland or, at retail, by the trading standards departments of local authorities. Eggs imported from the Netherlands would also be subject to inspection by the Dutch authorities.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that imported eggs into the United Kingdom are not sold as fresh farm eggs.
  286
  Mr. Curry
  There is specific provision in the EC Egg Marketing Standards Regulations for eggs and egg packs to carry terms or symbols which refer to a member state or a region of origin. It is for individual egg packers and retailers to decide whether to mark their eggs as British, but many of them do.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total volume of eggs imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last 12 months; and from which countries.

  Mr. Curry
  The volume, in metric tonnes, of eggs, including eggs not in shells, imported into the United Kingdom is shown on the table by country of dispatch. Figures are given for the months November 1991 to October 1992, the most recent 12 months for which data are available.

  Mr. Curry
  Eggs can be sold at retail as "farm fresh" only if they meet the standards for class A eggs laid down by the EC Egg Marketing Standards Regulations. Compliance with the standards is checked by the egg marketing inspectorate in England and Wales and equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland and, at retail, by the trading standards departments of local authorities. These arrangements apply to both home-produced and imported eggs.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that eggs from egg sale co-operatives in Holland are not being dumped on the United Kingdom market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  A small proportion of eggs sold and processed in the United Kingdom come from other member states and they are generally priced competitively. There is no evidence that any significant volume of eggs is being imported at very low prices.

  Oil Dispersants
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests have been carried out to simulate toxicity in beach and rocky foreshore cleaning for each of the oil dispersants(a) Dispolene 345, (b) Dasic Slickgone LTSW and (c) BP Enersperse 1037; what results were obtained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Before an oil dispersant is approved for use in United Kingdom waters it is required to meet stringent standards for efficacy, viscosity, storage stability and toxicity. Tests are carried out by the Warren Spring Laboratory and this Ministry's directorate of fisheries research.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to state that the Enersperse dispersant used in the Shetlands incident was Enersperse 1583, and not, as previously indicated, Enersperse 1037.

  The test for toxicity in sea water and beach conditions compares a suspension of oil in sea water with a similar suspension to which the candidate dispersant has been added. To pass, the suspension containing the dispersant must be no more toxic than that containing oil and sea water alone. Dispolene 34S, Dasic Slickgone LTSW and Enersperse 1583 all passed this test.

  The test for toxicity in rocky shore conditions similarly involves a comparative assessment of the toxicity of the oil and of the dispersant. Enersperse 1583 passed this test. Dispolene 34S did not. Slickgone LTSW was not proposed for use on rocky shores and was accordingly not subject to the test.

  Further technical details of our toxicity testing procedures are given in fisheries research technical report No. 39, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Bananas
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the proceeds of the tariff on bananas will be redistributed to Africa, Caribbean and Pacific area suppliers of bananas.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has proposed new aid measures to assist ACP banana producers. No decisions have yet been taken on these, but they would not be funded specifically from the proceeds of the tariff on bananas. Tariff revenues from all commodities are treated for budgetary purposes as Community own resources.

  Industrial Discharges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct a survey of dioxin pollution of farmland by industrial discharges.

  Mr. Soames
  The analysis of milk for contaminants provides a good indication of environmental contamination. The Ministry has therefore undertaken a survey of milk from farms in several rural and urban/industrial areas in the United Kingdom and published the results in food surveillance paper No. 31. The surveillance programme of dioxins in milk from farms in areas near to potential sources of dioxins is planned to continue.

  Rape Seed
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have for encouraging the cultivation of rape seed for use as a fuel for motor vehicles.

  Mr. Curry
  Rape seed may be grown for non-food use (including for motor vehicle fuel) on arable land, with the benefit of the oil seed area payment, or on set-aside land with the benefit of the lower set-aside payment.

  Whisky
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the export record of the Scotch whisky industry for the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  The volume and value of Scotch whisky exports for the last five years are as follows:

  Volume (million litres of pure alcohol)

  Value (£ billion)

  1987

  240.17

  1.14

  1988

  245.98

  1.29

  1989

  242.49

  1.47

  1990

  238.30

  1.71

  1991

  227.75

  1.83

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels 12 m long and under are registered in the north-east; and what is their total horse power.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Fishing vessels 12 m or less

  Total horsepower

  551

  43,794

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total horse power for all vessels is accounted for by boats of 12 m length and under.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Vessels of 12 m or less represent 42 per cent. of the total fishing vessel horsepower.

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the assessed need and (b) the current provision of (a) sheltered and (b) special needs housing in (i) Scotland, (ii) Strathclyde, (iii) Renfrew district, (iv) Paisley, (v) Johnstone and (vi) Elderslie; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance on the provision of sheltered housing and housing for the
  289
  disabled were issued to local authorities on 28 March 1991 in the circular "Housing and Community Care" (Env. 8/91). The guidelines give only a general indication and authorities were advised to set targets in the light of local circumstances.

  Sheltered and Special Needs housing, 31 March 1992

  Area

  Sheltered Housing

  Special Needs

  Very sheltered

  Sheltered

  Medium dependency

  Wheelchair1

  Mobility standard

  Number2

  Guidelines3 figure (20 dwellings per 1,000 population)

  Number2

  Guidelines3 figure (46 dwellings per 1,000 population)

  Number2

  Guidelines3 figure (80 dwellings per 1,000 population)

  Number2

  Guidelines3 figure (1 per cent. of total stock4)

  Number2

  Guidelines3 figure (10 per cent. of total stock4)

  Scotland

  326

  15,228

  30,593

  35,024

  31,147

  60,912

  3,620

  21,420

  19,336

  214,200

  Strathclyde

  21

  6,662

  10,591

  15,323

  15,588

  26,648

  1,084

  —

  10,411

  —

  Renfrew

  —

  548

  735

  1,260

  1,329

  2,192

  146

  —

  55

  —

  1Including sheltered wheelchair houses

  2All figures, except for guideline figures, relate to provision by public agencies and housing associations only

  3Derived from guidance circular Community Care in Scotland issued to local authorities etc. on 28 March 1991

  4Figures for total stock not available below Scotland level

  Source: Hsg/1992/8: Housing Trends in Scotland—Quarter ended 30 June 1992

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the controller of the Scottish ambulance service to discuss the efficient operation of services within(a) the Argyll and Clyde health board area and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State meets the general manager of the Scottish ambulance service from time to time. He is accountable to the Common Services Agency for the performance of the Scottish ambulance service. Officials of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department regularly meet senior staff of the Common Services Agency and discuss measures aimed at improving response rates having regard to the resources made available.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of which local authorities have benefited during 1991–92 and 1992–93 from the additional £15 million capital allocation made to enable local authorities to tackle homelessness; and if he will detail the homelessness initiatives which the allocation has led to with a breakdown of how the allocation has been distributed between(a) the local authorities and (b) the specific homelessness initiatives.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: A table setting out the additional resources made available to local authorities in 1991–92 and so far in 1992–93 to support homelessness projects has been placed in the House Library.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites of special scientific interest damaged by acid rain in the latest year for which figures are available and give the hectarage of each site of special scientific interest affected.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 January 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested.
  290
  The latest available information for provision compared to the guidelines is set out in the following table. Information for Paisley, Johnstone and Elderslie is not available centrally.

  Research between 1988 and 1991 funded by the former Nature Conservancy Council examined fresh waters within sites of special scientific interest which were considered to be vulnerable to the effects of acid rain. Of 89 sites in Scotland which were examined, the 44 listed in the table showed evidence of acidification beyond natural background levels of one or more fresh water features for which acid rain is the presumed cause.

  Sites of special scientific interest showing evidence of acidification

  Mochrum Lochs

  Wood of Cree

  Glentrool Oakwoods

  Merrick-Kells

  Cairnsmore of Fleet

  Kenmure Holms

  River Dee Parton to Crossmichael

  Laughengie and Airie Hills

  Moffat Hills

  Bogton Loch

  Loch Doon

  Feoch Meadows

  Arran Northern Mountains

  West Loch Lomondside Woodlands

  North End of Bute

  Hells Glen

  Loch Eck

  Rinns of Islay

  Ardpatrick and Dunmore Woods

  Doire Darach

  Crannach Wood

  Coladoir Bog

  Central Mull Complex

  Rannoch Moor

  Lon Leanachain

  Glen Coe

  Ben Nevis

  Claish Moss

  Loch Bran

  Glen Affric

  Beinn Eighe

  Loch Maree Islands

  Inverpolly

  Ben Loyal

  North Harris

  Tweed River

  Lochan Lairig Cheile

  Rowardennan Woodlands

  Loch Con

  Glen Muick and Lochnagar

  Cairngorms

  291

  Eastern Cairngorms

  Kinveachy Forest

  Creag Meagaidh

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parliamentary questions in(a) the last and (b) the current Session of Parliament have been referred to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency; what percentage this is of the total number of parliamentary questions tabled in each of these Sessions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Session

  Total

  Benefits Agency

  Percentage

  11991–92

  1,270

  110

  7

  21992–93

  1,822

  283

  16

  131 October 1991 to 16 March 1992.

  227 April 1992 to current date.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) England who were in receipt of mobility allowance or attendance allowance before April 1992 are still waiting for a decision on (i) claims and (ii) appeals for disability living allowance;

  (2) how many claimants in (a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) England have been waiting (i) less than three months, (ii) three to six months, (iii) six to 12 months and (iv) more than 12 months for a decision on (1) claims and (2) appeals for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give(a) the number of applications for disability living allowance and attendance allowances referred to the ministerial hotline since it was opened and (b) the number of those which have been cleared, together with the average waiting time.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance and attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 17 January 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of applications for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) referred to the ministerial hotline since it began and the number of those which have been cleared, together with the average waiting time.
  As you are aware an unprecedented number of letters had been received from MPs as a consequence of the large number of claims following the successful launch of DLA. The DLA hotline was set up to alleviate problems experienced when
  292
  MPs were unable to contact the DLA Unit via the main switchboard and to provide up to date information about a specific claim with the minimum of delay.
  Up to 8 January 1993, 4,607 calls have been received. All the cases have had some action taken and an update provided to the enquirer. The aim is to provide an update to the enquirer within 48 hours of the initial call and this target has been met on average in 97 per cent. of cases. Of the calls received 4,197 have been finally cleared and the remaining calls will be finally cleared when the operational areas have processed the cases. I can assure you that these cases are being monitored to ensure they are cleared as quickly as possible. These calls are not necessarily about new DLA claims, some refer to existing awards of AA and Mobility Allowance (MobA) transferred to the DLA Unit and DLA reviews and appeals. Statistics are not held in a format that enables me to provide an average clearance time.
  There is no dedicated hotline for AA but calls are treated in the same way and the DLA hotline liaise with the special correspondence section in the AA Unit who are then responsible for responding directly to the MP. Up to 8 January 1993, 483 of the 4,607 calls have been referred to the AA Unit and 13 have not yet been cleared. The target 48 hour update has been met in all cases by the AA Unit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims to date for the disability living allowance have been completed(a) with the assistance of telephone calls and (b) with the assistance of visits made by the forms completion service staff in the disability benefits centres.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 October 1992, Official Report, columns 751–52]: The chief executive has written further to the hon. Member.

  Carers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effect of the registration of a supported lodging as a small residential home, pursuant to the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 on the benefit entitlement of a typical carer previously in receipt of housing benefit, disability living allowance (care) and the income support severe disability premium and now receiving the residential allowance in their place.

  Mr. Burt
  The operation of the Registered Homes Act is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I understand that from 1 April 1993, under an amendment to that Act, proprietors of residential care homes for fewer than four people—small homes—which are judged by their local authority as providing both board and personal care, will be required to register with that authority. Homes providing board and personal care for four residents or more are already required to register.

  The residential allowance will be introduced from 1 April as part of the new community care arrangements and will be paid to residents who enter a registered home as part of their normal income support entitlement.

  People resident at 31 March in small homes, which are subsequently required to register, and who are receiving housing benefit to help with the home fees will have their entitlement to housing benefit transitionally protected for as long as they remain in the same home and otherwise remain entitled to that benefit.

  Only those residents in small homes at 31 March 1993, which are subsequently required to register, who are already receiving higher levels of income support will have preserved rights to those higher levels.
  293
  Where a resident has a preserved right to income support, they will also have a preserved right to attendance allowance or the care component of disability living allowance and any associated income support premium.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the principal provisions governing entitlement to social security benefits of unemployed people involved in self-build projects.

  Mr. Burt
  People receiving benefits for unemployment involved in self-build projects are subject to the normal conditions of entitlement to benefit; in particular they must continue to actively seek work each week and be prepared to take a job offer or attend a job interview immediately the opportunity arises.

  Independent Living Fund
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the limit for establishing the cost of a placement in a residential or nursing home will be set under the proposed arrangements for the replacement of the independent living fund; who will assess the needs of a disabled person requiring personal assistance over the level; whether the cash payment from the new fund will be claimed by the individual or the local authority; and whether the expertise required by the administrators of the new fund will be the same as that required by the administrators of the fund continuing for existing ILF claimants.

  Mr. Scott
  The means by which the costs of a placement in residential or nursing care will be assessed for the purposes of the body that will replace the independent living fund are still being considered. An announcement will be made in due course.

  The needs of a disabled person who applies to the new body will be assessed and agreed by the local authority, by social workers employed by the successor body, and by the disabled person themselves.

  The cash payment from the new body will be paid to the individual. The question of whether the individual or the local authority should make the application is under consideration.

  The expertise required by the administrators of the new body will be broadly similar to that required by those administering the fund for existing cases because both bodies have the same fundamental aims. Operational details of the new body are still under discussion.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision will be made between now and April for people who would previously have been eligible for funding from the independent living fund who require funding over the level provided by the local authority; and what provision there is for people whose local authority is unable to make appropriate personal assistance provision between now and April.

  Mr. Scott
  Those people should approach their local authorities, whose duties to provide services to disabled people are unchanged.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward proposals to extend the payment of housing benefit following the death of the claimant to cover a period when the deceased's affairs are being dealt with by family or representatives.

  Mr. Burt
  The purpose of housing benefit is to help claimants to meet their liability to pay rent. We therefore have no plans to extend payment of housing benefit to cover a period after a claimant's death.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the areas in which cold weather payments have been triggered since 1 November 1991, the national climatological message stations involved, the dates in each case between which payments were made, the numbers of people who have received such payments in each of those areas and the total sum paid out during each such period.

  Mr. Scott
  So far this winter more than 2.6 million people have been sent cold weather payments worth in total more than £16 million. The specific information requested on weather stations, trigger dates and the number of payments made is made available in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what relationship exists between the living expenses of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid through income support and the hotel charges paid to landlords by local authorities.

  Mr. Burt
  Income support provides help with day-to-day living expenses. Housing benefit is available to people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to help with reasonable charges. Arrangements made between landlords and local authorities are a matter for them.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is total expenditure on(a) private residential homes and (b) private nursing homes by his Department in 1991–92 (i) in Doncaster and (ii) for Doncaster residents.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war pensioners currently reside within the area of Barnsley metropolitan borough council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available. It is estimated that in 1991 6,784 war disablement pensioners and 1,771 war widows were resident in the South Yorkshire and Humberside area.

  Pensioners Living Overseas
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of uprating all pensions currently received by British state pensioners living in(a) Canada. (b) Australia, (c) New Zealand, (d) South Africa and (e) Other EC countries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated additional cost, at 1992 rates, would be as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Canada

  70

  (b) Australia

  120

  (c) New Zealand

  30

  (d) South Africa

  25

  United Kingdom pensions are already paid at full United Kingdom rates to beneficiaries living in EC countries.

EMPLOYMENT

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Contracts for consultancies awarded to KPMG Management Consultants in the current financial year (1992–93) were as follows:

  A review of the training development arrangements in the Department's training, enterprise and education directorate.

  A feasibility study on output related funding for TECs.

  A workshop on market testing for managers in the Department's business services division.

  An assessment of the scope for market testing in the Department's economics, research and evaluation division.

  A study into the distribution of HSE publications.

  A review of the roles and functions of SEOs/business managers in the Department.

  To produce and disseminate (in two contracts) extensions of manuals on key skills for the training of trainers.

  The office of manpower economics also awarded the following contracts to KPMG Management Consultants in 1992–93;

  Work relating to the civil service grades 5 to 7 pay levels survey. Work associated with the schoolteachers' pay review body (two contracts).

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the actual and percentage figures for the numbers of adult males(a) registered unemployed, (b) receiving income support and (c) economically inactive for each standard planning region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 December 1992]: The extent of the latest available information is given in the following tables.
  296

  Table 1 Male claimant unemployed aged 16 and over (not seasonally adjusted) in November 19921

  Region

  Number

  2 Per cent. rate

  South East (including Greater London)

  682,597

  13.2

  East Anglia

  61,310

  10.4

  South West

  166,416

  12.9

  West Midlands

  213,030

  14.5

  East Midlands

  136,919

  12.2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  187,784

  13.8

  North West

  252,333

  14.4

  Northern

  128,716

  16.2

  Wales

  102,530

  13.5

  Scotland

  187,478

  13.0

  Northern Ireland

  80,542

  18.7

  1 Males aged 16 and over claiming Unemployment Benefit, Income Support and National Insurance Credits at Employment Service local offices.

  2 Percentage of male workforce (the sum of unemployed claimants, employees in employment, self-employed, HM forces and participants on work-related Government training schemes).

  Source: Employment Department.

  Monthly unadjusted claimant unemployment data.

  Table 2 Males aged 16 and over in receipt of Income Support in May 19913

  Region

  Number

  1 Percentage

  England2

  1,645,000

  8.9

  Wales

  111,000

  10.4

  Scotland

  209,000

  10.8

  1 Males in receipt of Income Support as a percentage of the male population aged 16 and over. Population figures were obtained from the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) and apply to mid 1991.

  2 Data is not available for the standard regions of England.

  3 No data is available for Northern Ireland.

  Source: Department of Social Security (DSS).

  Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1991.

  Table 3 Males aged 16 and over economically inactive in summer 19922

  Region

  Number

  Percentage rate1

  South East (including Greater London)

  1,560,986

  23.5

  East Anglia

  191,950

  24.0

  South West

  471,183

  26.2

  West Midlands

  494,279

  24.6

  East Midlands

  391,411

  25.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  501,305

  26.6

  North West

  654,128

  27.2

  Northern

  336,087

  28.8

  Wales

  352,215

  32.1

  Scotland

  481,026

  25.3

  1 Males economically inactive as a percentage of the male population aged 16 and over.

  2 No data is available for Northern Ireland.

  Source: Employment Department.

  Labour Force Survey summer 1992.

DEFENCE

  PSA Projects
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts between the pre-privatised PSA Projects and his Department were amended to ensure a greater proportion of(a) contract costs and (b) fee income became due in the period preceding the transfer of projects to the private sector.

  Mr. Aitken
  None. The only revisions made were to total fees where the level was considered to be disproportionate to the contract costs and the work involved. This negotiation was unconnected to the sale of PSA Projects.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what value of new work the MOD has guaranteed to PSA Projects Ltd; and how the MOD will ensure it receives value for money.

  Mr. Aitken
  The MOD has a contract with PSA Projects for architectural, design and related services to the value of £8 million. This contract ensures value for money through predetermined prices and its provision for termination if the company's performance is unsatisfactory.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each project undertaken by PSA Projects Ltd. for his Department by name and value; and if he will publish for each of these projects a breakdown of the proportion of fees to be earned at each stage of the project.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information that the hon. Member requests could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. My Department has contracts with PSA Projects Ltd. for some 480 projects with an estimated total value of £4 billion. The phasing of fee payments is related to progress achieved.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of contracted work currently undertaken by PSA Projects Ltd.. at the Faslane and Coulport sites; and what was the total value of contracts held by PSA Projects for work at the Faslane and Coulport sites on 1 November 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total value of the outstanding project management task which PSA Projects Ltd. is contracted to undertaken on Trident works at Faslane and Coulport, including costs for employment of consultants, is some £69.3 million. As at 1 November 1992, the total outstanding value of the supply and service agreements for Trident works at Faslane and Coulport with PSA Projects was £81.9 million. The value of other non-Trident work at Faslane and Coulport with PSA Projects Ltd. is about £3 million.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the MOD's market-testing programme for maintenance work for each year from 1993–94 to 1998–99.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has a rolling programme to complete market testing of property management, which includes all maintenance and new construction jobs up to a value of £300,000, between now and 1999.
  298
  Maintenance projects with a value in excess of £300,000 are now subject to competition.

  Maintenance
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total value of maintenance work carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Defence by(a) other undertakings, (b) the PSA building management business divisions and (c) private contractors.

  Mr. Aitken
  The current value of MOD property management, based on 1992–93 contract figures, is estimated at £593 million, including works costs and fees. Of this some £78 million has been won in competition, including £21 million by PSA Building Management, the balance going to private contractors. The rest of the work remains largely with PSA and there are no other bodies, including MOD employees, undertaking any significant amount of work.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the whereabouts of the land owned and leased by his Department and the land over which his Department has rights in Wales, indicating the amount of land area involved in each instance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Research
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research agreements or contracts have been agreed by(a) the royal aircraft establishment, (b) the atomic weapons research establishment, (c) the royal signals and radar establishment, (d) the aeroplane and armament experimental aircraft establishment, (e) the royal armament research development establishment, (f) the Admiralty research establishment, (g) the chemical defence establishment and (h) the Royal Ordnance factories with universities and other institutions of higher education (i) within and (ii) outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  In April 1991 RAE, RSRE, RARDE and ARE were amalgamated to form the Defence Research Agency (DRA). The DRA currently sponsors 690 research agreements and contracts within the United Kingdom and two overseas.

  The atomic weapons establishment currently sponsors 29 research agreements and contracts within the United Kingdom and one overseas.

  The aeroplane and armament evaluation establishment, now part of directorate general of test and evaluation, does not currently sponsor any research agreement or contracts.

  The chemical and biological defence establishment currently sponsors 66 research agreements and contracts within the United Kingdom and none overseas.

  Following their sale on 2 April 1987, the Royal Ordnance factories now are part of British Aerospace plc and I am therefore not in a position to provide the information that the hon. Member requests.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research projects in universities and other
  299
  institutions of higher education have been funded under the joint research council-Ministry of Defence research grants scheme in each year since the inception of the scheme.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 552 research projects have been funded under the joint Research Council/MOD research grants scheme since the inception of the scheme in 1986. The annual breakdown is as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects started

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  64

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  42

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  76

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  143

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  122

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  53

  1 April 1992 to 15 January 1993

  52

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's research contracts currently placed with United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the consistent policy of my Department not to release details of individual research contracts at universities and other institutions of higher education, but to leave it to the institutions themselves to confirm their involvement.

  Procurement
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of his Department's procurement expenditure was spent in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern ireland and (d) each of the standard English regions during the last financial year.

  Mr. Aitken
  A geographical breakdown is available only for equipment expenditure, which excludes items such as fuel, food and clothing. This is published in table 1.11 of Defence Statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Lectureship Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many academics are at present sponsored under the defence lectureship scheme; and at which universities or other higher education institutions they are based.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are four academics fully sponsored by my Department under the defence lectureship scheme, based at Aberdeen, Aberystwyth, Birmingham and London universities. My Department also continues to meet the administrative and support costs of two academics at Cambridge university who have come to the end of their lectureship term.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of nuclear weapons withdrawn from deployment by NATO in Europe(a) as a result of unilateral decisions by NATO, (b) as a result of bilateral negotiations with the former Soviet Union and the
  300
  Commonwealth of Independent States and (c) as a result of multilateral negotiations with former members of the Warsaw treaty organisation since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of nuclear warheads deployed by NATO in Europe has since the late 1970s been reduced by some 90 per cent, to a current toal of well under 1,000. This includes the elimination of all ground-launched and tactical martime nuclear weapons in Europe. The withdrawal of some 400 ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles came specifically under the bilateral US/USSR INF treaty, other reductions have resulted from reassessments, within the alliance, of NATO's minimum security requirements.

  Seismology
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was allocated by his Department on unclassified work on seismology as a verification technology in 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  Funding allocated for this purpose was £.1.5 million.

  Defence Land
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishments of, and land owned by, or leased by, or in which an interest is held by(a) the Territorial Army, (b) the Home Service Force, (c) the Royal Observer Corps, (d) recruitment offices of the armed forces and (e) the cadet forces in Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), 3 December 1992,Official Report, column 365, if he will set out the criteria used to evaluate the commercial sensitivity of arms exports.

  Mr. Aitken
  All information on individual arms exports is normally judged to be a commercial matter between the customer government and the commercial firm concerned. However, in exceptional circumstances such as those surrounding the conflicts with Argentina and Iraq, when the information concerned is no longer commercially sensitive, this rule may be overriden.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department made, prior to 10 November 1992, into the involvement of United Kingdom companies in establishing military production facilities in Yugoslavia since 1984.

  Mr. Aitken
  Prior to July 1991, applications for licences to export military production facilities to the former Yugoslavia were considered on a case-by-case basis. It is not our policy to discuss the details of individual export licence applications.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston became aware that rabbits had been affected by plutonium stored in the open; when the establishment made this fact publicly known; what was the reason for the interval between these dates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 25 June,Official Report, column 298. In addition I emphasise that plutonium is not stored in the open at AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston(a) commenced and (b) ceased storing plutonium radioactive waste in the open.

  Mr. Aitken
  From 1953 to October 1984 plutonium contaminated waste awaiting disposal was held in sealed steel drums, some of which were stored in the open for limited periods. Since October 1984 all such solid waste awaiting disposal has been held in sealed steel drums and other closed steel containers located safely and securely in purpose-built stores.

  Prior to 1983 all plutonium contaminated liquid waste was solidified for disposal as solid waste. Since 1983 all such liquid waste has been held in closed steel tanks located in bitumen lined pits.

  Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce who has won the contract for a new Royal Navy helicopter carrier; and if he will make a statement.

  Service Type

  Aircraft

  19781

  1988

  Present

  Royal Navy

  Helicopter

  200

  183

  165

  Fixed wing

  117

  73

  66

  Army

  Helicopter

  —

  283

  307

  Fixed wing

  —

  26

  28

  Royal Air Force

  Helicopter

  153

  164

  181

  Fixed wing

  1,271

  1,238

  1,035

  1 The information for the Army could not be obtained in the time available.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many search and rescue helicopter flights were flown from RAF Leuchars in 1992; how many persons were rescued; of those rescued, how many were service personnel and how many civilians; and if he will list the same information for the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table gives the total number of search and rescue flights—civil and military, flown from RAF Leuchars over the past five years. The figures in brackets show the number of persons rescued, including the transfer of sick or injured people from ship to hospital.
  302
  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East, (Mr. Brown) on 12 January 1992,Official Report, col. 759.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the result of his Department's and the Royal Air Force's discussions with Russian aircraft manufacturers on replacing the RAF's squadrons of(a) Nimrod MR.2 aircraft with the Beriev Be-42 Mermaid, and (b) Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft with the Antonov An-70T; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been no substantive discussions with Russian aircraft manufacturers. Western firms wishing to offer Russian aircraft have been advised that we are generally prepared to consider competitive bids on their own merits from sources that can demonstrate their ability to meet our technical, financial and other requirements.

  Sri Lanka (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent contacts his Department has had with the Government of Sri Lanka about arms sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has had a number of contacts with the Sri Lanka Ministry of Defence covering a variety of issues. Such contacts, however, are a confidential matter for the two Governments.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present number of(a) helicopters and (b) fixed-winged aircraft in each of the services; and what were the figures in 1978 and 1988, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Military

  Civilian

  Total callouts

  1988

  18

  (3)

  134

  (112)

  152

  (115)

  1989

  19

  (11)

  114

  (51)

  133

  (62)

  1990

  6

  (4)

  119

  (45)

  125

  (49)

  1991

  7

  —

  154

  (90)

  161

  (90)

  1992

  13

  (7)

  118

  (54)

  131

  (61)

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of occasions that search and rescue helicopter operations were called out from RAF Leuchars between 24 December 1992 and 4 January 1993.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were five SAR helicopter call-outs from RAF Leuchars in the period.

  Logistic Vehicles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the Defence Research Agency's study of future logistic vehicles; and if he will publish it when he does so.

  Mr. Aitken
  The study into future logistic vehicles policy is being led by my Department's operational requirements staff. As part of this activity, we have sponsored the Defence Research Agency's vehicle conceptual study and expect to receive their report in mid-January. My Department's report is scheduled for completion in June; it will not be published but those companies which contributed to the conceptual study will be briefed once the results have been fully evaluated.

  Defence Employment Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the reduction of his Department's employment in Hampshire arising from reductions in the Defence Research Agency.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. John Denham, dated 20 January 1993:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question of what estimate he has made of the reduction of his Department's employment in Hampshire arising from reductions in the Defence Research Agency.
  I estimate that DRA job losses in Hampshire will be in the region of 700.
  I hope you will find this information useful.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what was the total number of personnel employed by his Department whose place of work was located in Hampshire in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total number of Ministry of Defence personnel employed in Hampshire in each year since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Service personnel

  MOD civilians1

  1987

  38,543

  22,275

  1988

  37,904

  21,336

  1989

  36,715

  20,495

  1990

  34,254

  20,642

  1991

  33,412

  20,146

  1992

  31,742

  19,598

  All figures are as at 1 July.

  1 Excludes casual staff.

  Spare Parts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount of expenditure on spare parts for(a) Tornado GR1 aircraft, (b) Tornado F3 aircraft, (c) Harrier aircraft, (d) Chinook helicopters and (e) Rapier missiles in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.
  304
  Mr. Aitken
  Information is not held in the form requested and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost and effort. I will write to the hon. Member.

  RAF (Voluntary Redundancy)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force personnel have applied for voluntary redundancy in each year since 1990; what plans he has to make further offers of voluntary redundancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No Royal Air Force personnel applied for voluntary redundancy in either 1990 or 1991. Under the first phase of the current redundancy scheme, some 1,100 applications have been received for the 960 or so redundancy places available up to April 1994.

  The extent of the second phase of the redundancy scheme, which is scheduled to take place in FY 94/95, is subject to review in the light of forecast requirements and outflow trends. Details will be finalised and announced in due course.

  RAF (NATO Role)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal Air Force will have in(a) the new NATO rapid reaction force, (b) the new NATO main defence forces and (c) the new NATO augmentation forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The RAF will be making a significant contribution of up to 80 aircraft to the Reaction Force (Air). The aircraft will be drawn from the Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar forces. Rapier surface-to-air missiles will also be assigned. The broad range of capabilities that these forces will provide to both the immediate reaction and rapid reaction components of the force has been warmly welcomed by NATO.

  RAF assets not assigned to the Reaction Force (Air) will form part of the NATO main defence force. Our contribution to this will include strike-attack and reconnaissance assets, a comprehensive air defence capability and, to reflect the increased emphasis on flexibility of deployment, comprehensive transport, air-to-air refuelling and support helicopter forces. No RAF assets are currently being assigned to the lower readiness augmentation forces.

  These contributions to the reaction and main defence forces will ensure that the RAF continues to play a major role in NATO.

  Air Force Reserve
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-Royal Air Force pilots are currently participating in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently five ex-Royal Air Force pilots in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and four in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made in his policy to encourage pilots who leave the Royal Air Force to
  305
  participate in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve since May 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. All officers, including pilots, who retire or leave the RAF are encouraged to join the volunteer reserve forces. They are issued with a booklet, "Notes for Officers retiring from the Royal Air Force", which gives details of the roles of the various reserve units and their locations.

  RAF Personnel
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force personnel (i) became qualified to serve in, (ii) served in and (iii) left the service from(a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of ground airmen (including airwomen) who:

  (i) Became qualified to serve in engineering trades

  1991

  1992

  (a) Armaments

  195

  56

  (b) Mechanical

  761

  567

  (c) Electrical

  147

  224

  (d) Electronic

  432

  663

  (ii) Serving in engineering trades as at 1 January

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (a) Armaments

  3,323

  3,339

  3,233

  (b) Mechanical

  14,543

  14,282

  13,914

  (c) Electrical

  4,006

  3,937

  3,884

  (d) Electronic

  10,253

  9,918

  9,908

  (iii) Left the service from engineering trades

  1991

  1992

  (a) Armaments

  179

  162

  (b) Mechanical

  1,022

  935

  (c) Electrical

  216

  277

  (d) Electronic

  767

  673

  Air Defences
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of the threat to United Kingdom air defences; what changes have occurred in that assessment in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the immediate threat posed to United Kingdom air defences has reduced significantly. We remain conscious, however, of the uncertainties posed by the massive political, economic and military changes which have occurred over the past four years and, as reported in the 1992 statement of defence estimates, we shall continue to ensure that the armed forces are of a scale and quality able to respond to future challenges.

  Running Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current average annual running costs of(a) a Buccaneer strike/attack squadron, (b) a Jaguar offensive support squadron, (c) a Nimrod maritime patrol squadron, (d) a Tornado F3 air defence squadron and (e) a Tornado GR 1 squadron.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average running costs for 1992–93 at outturn prices for a squadron of each aircraft type is as shown in the table. Squadron sizes are variable; this has an effect on average running costs.

  £ million

  Buccaneer

  19.7

  Jaguar GR 1a

  19.4

  Nimrod MR

  18.8

  Tornado F3

  35.6

  Tornado GR1

  26.7

  These running costs do not include costs relating to depreciation, interest on capital or station and administration costs.

  Belize
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual running cost of the Royal Air Force detachment stationed in Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cash allocation for 1992–93 for pay (ground and air crew), fuel and garrison costs is some £20 million. Training and engineering support costs are not held separately for Belize.

  RAF (Compulsory Redundancies)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force personnel have been made compulsorily redundant in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Legal Immunity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, columns 131–32, what other reasons for exemption for legislation exist apart from national security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1993]: The Ministry of Defence would seek exemption from legislation only on grounds of national security. In this context national security includes the operational capability and effectiveness of the armed forces.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Motor Industry (Industrial Strategy)
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the motor industry to discuss an industrial strategy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler).

  GATT Talks
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent GATT talks and on the effects that the outcome will have on the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of the GATT round.

  Mr. Needham
  Negotiations are continuing in Geneva, and we still hope it will be possible to reach agreement in the next few weeks. A successful conclusion would bring substantial benefits to the United Kingdom economy: it could directly increase GDP by 1 to 2 per cent. and lead to the creation of 60,000 jobs. Over and above that it would give improved market opportunities and more stable trading conditions for our exporters.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a Statement on the proposed closure of coal mines in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government are conducting a wide-ranging review of the prospects for 21 of the pits proposed for closure by British Coal. I hope to be able to publish a White Paper as soon as possible next month setting out the results of that review, which will then be debated in this House.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which pits he will keep open in the light of his review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The coal review is considering the prospects for 21 pits proposed for closure by British Coal, but not subject to the current statutory consultation exercise, in the context of the energy market as a whole. I obviously cannot anticipate the findings of the review. I hope to be able to publish the coal review White Paper as soon as possible next month.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his review of British Coal's colliery closure programme.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I hope to be able to publish the coal review White Paper as soon as possible next month.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what terms of reference have been given to Boyds for its review of the 10 pits on the closure list; and what external legal advice he took from it;

  (2) when he expects Boyds to visit each colliery on the 10 pit closure list; what are the causes for the lengthening of the original timetable; and when he expects to receive its report.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade wrote to British Coal and the mining industry unions on 15 January providing them with details of the Boyds study of the 10 pits currently subject to consultation. Copies of these letters, including the terms of reference and proposed details of procedure of the Boyds study, have been placed in the Library of the House.
  308
  I understand that Boyds has sent British Coal and the unions a timetable of its visits to the 10 pits, and that this is the only timetable formally drawn up for the study. Boyds has been asked to report by 15 March. It would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to take legal advice from Boyds, and no such advice was taken.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 January to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague),Official Report, column 739, if OFFER submitted evidence to his Department's coal review.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: Professor Stephen Littlechild, Director General of Electricity Supply, wrote to me on 11 January with evidence to the coal review. A copy of the non-confidential parts of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House along with the other evidence to the coal review.

  Small and New Businesses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage small and new businesses in Cardiff and in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government will continue to encourage small and new businesses in the United Kingdom by fostering the right economic climate and by providing both directly and through TECs and LECs a wide range of programmes of support and assistance. These policies helped some 400,000 new firms to start last year.

  Recent important developments include our plans to establish a network of one-stop shops for businesses in England and changes to the loan guarantee scheme to improve its operation.

  Detailed arrangements for encouraging small businesses in Cardiff are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Premium Telephone Services
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Director General of OFTEL to discuss regulation of premium telephone services.

  Mr. Leigh
  No meeting has been held. Premium rate services are effectively regulated by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, ICSTIS.

  Insurance Companies (Solvency Margin)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to review the Government's solvency margin criteria for insurance companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The statutory minimum solvency margins are Community obligations and stem from the first insurance directives of 1973 (non life insurance) and 1979 (life insurance). The European Commission has undertaken to review and report on the need for further harmonisation of the solvency margin by July 1997 at the latest. In practice, DTI normally expects insurance companies to maintain a solvency margin of at least twice the statutory minimum. In supervising insurance companies my Department attaches importance to a wide range of other indicators besides the solvency margin.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Major Energy Users Council about energy costs of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials met the Major Energy Users Council (MEUC) in October 1992. The MEUC agreed to survey the electricity prices paid by their members in the second and third quarters of 1991 and 1992. The Department will compare the results of this survey, when it is received, with our own statistics.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he had with trading standards officers about their staffing requirements for enforcing product safety legislation.

  Mr. Leigh
  There have been no such discussions. It is the responsibility of local authorities to employ sufficient trading standards officers to enforce legislation effectively.

  Public Sector Purchasing
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that British companies are able to derive full benefit from the public sector purchasing provisions of the European single market.

  Mr. Needham
  The opening up of public sector purchasing in the European Community and in the European Economic Area represents a major opportunity for suppliers in Europe. To ensure that British businesses are in a position to take full advantage of this, the EC public procurement programme features prominently in our single market literature. The single market booklet, "A Guide to Public Purchasing", is now in its fifth edition, and in total over 125,000 have been distributed.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made on the lifting of the burdens of regulation and form-filling for small and medium-sized enterprises; and if he will make a statement on regulations and forms scrapped since 10 April 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses there were in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Leigh
  Comprehensive figures on the number of small businesses in 1992 are not available. An indication of the change in the number of small businesses can be obtained by comparing the number of VAT registered businesses. The number of businesses registered for VAT at the end of 1979 was 1,289,000. At the end of 1991, the latest year for which we have figures, the number of businesses was 1,716,000, a rise of 33 per cent. These figures have been adjusted to take account of the uplift in the VAT thresholds.

  Mining Industry (Redundancy Terms)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about redundancy terms.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I agreed with British Coal the broad terms of its currrent redundancy schemes announced on 13 October 1992. Details of the schemes are a matter for the corporation.

  Business Closures
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have closed in the last 12 months in the west midlands and Stoke on Trent.

  Mr. Needham
  A regional breakdown of official insolvency statistics is not available. For compulsory liquidations and bankruptcy orders the only geographical information available is by the court in which the order was made. This is not a good basis for analysing company location, since many cases in England and Wales are dealt with in London regardless of the company's location, and work may be moved between courts according to differing workloads. There is no regional breakdown of creditors' voluntary liquidations.

  Machine Tool Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase Government support to the machine tool industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have met representatives of the machine tool industry twice in recent months. From this and other significant contact, the Government are well aware of the difficulties the industry is currently facing.

  Machine tool companies, along with those from other sectors, are and will continue to be eligible for a full range of Government assistance such as for exports and research and development. I also hope that demand for the industry's products may benefit from the temporary increase of capital allowance to 40 per cent. announced in the autumn statement.

  Terrorist Incidents (Insurance)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the withdrawal of cover for terrorist incidents by insurance companies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have received various representations from a broad spectrum of industry and commerce regarding the announcement that insurance companies were to withdraw insurance cover for terrorist attacks. In response to this problem I announced on 21 December that the Government have decided in principle to act as reinsurer of last resort for terrorist attacks against mainland GB non-domestic property and related risks from January 1993.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that the rating schedule issued by Associated British Insurers in connection with the Government scheme for terrorism insurance cover, does not discriminate heavily against businesses based outside the eight major urban areas; and if he will consider asking the ABI to review these rates.
  311
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The premium rates for terrorist cover, as with all forms of insurance, seek to reflect perceived levels of risk and are therefore weighted towards higher-risk areas. The rates will be reviewed from time to time.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with retailers and insurance brokers on the Government scheme for terrorism insurance cover.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I met representatives of the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association on 1 December 1992, and my officials have been in regular touch with them since then. I met representatives of the British Retail Consortium on 19 January.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider extending the Government scheme on insurance cover for terrorism to companies based outside the United Kingdom, in particular captive insurance companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  These questions are currently under consideration.

  Estate Agents (Complaints)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he had with the National Association of Estate Agents concerning complaints against estate agents.

  Mr. Leigh
  No such discussions have taken place. If the hon. Member has any evidence of malpractice by estate agents he should bring it to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading or the local trading standards department.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to bring forward further legislation in the area of consumer protection.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government's manifesto for the 1992 general election included commitments to introduce legislation designed to give consumers confidence that what they purchase is properly described, to ensure that adequate compensation is offered where these requirements are not met, to enable the courts to override unfair terms in contracts, to improve powers to deal with rogue traders, and to amend the law relating to guarantees. Legislation to implement these commitments will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Exporters
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ease further the bureaucratic burdens on exporters within the single market.

  Mr. Needham
  The completion of the single market has led to the removal of most border formalities on trade with the European Community which has, for example, considerably reduced the burden on businesses of providing trade statistics. Under the new system, Intrastat, three quarters of United Kingdom businesses trading with other member states will have to provide only two 312
  statistics on their total value of trade on a quarterly basis. Larger traders will also benefit from the replacement of the previous documentation by a simpler statistical return which will only have to be provided monthly. This system, which also covers VAT returns, replaces the present one where each and every export shipment required its own separate paperwork in the form of the Single administrative document. It means that 10 million export forms will be eliminated each year with net annual saving to United Kingdom exporters estimated to be £135 million.

  The Prime Minister has recently announced a scrutiny review of European Community legislation to help ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on business when transposing Community legislation into national law. Furthermore the Government will continue to press for policies which will further liberalise the European Community market, including breaking down any bureaucratic barriers.

  Mining Equipment
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance the United Kingdom is providing to help manufacturers of mining equipment to win orders in Iran; and what is the comparable provision made by the German Government and agencies for German firms.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department is providing support to the Association of British Mining Equipment Manufacturers (ABMEC) to attend the international fair of mining machinery in Teheran and is at present considering inward mission sponsorship for the sector.

  Short and medium-term export credit cover is available on the usual "first some first served" basis. My Department has also provided overseas project funding in the last year to assist in the pursuance of a United Kingdom bid for a large mining project in Iran.

  The German Government and agencies are subject to the same OECD criteria as the United Kingdom, but I am unable to comment more specifically on German Government policy concerning Iran.

  Mine Records
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for mine records to be available in each region.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal holds and maintains coal mining records on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive. The location of coal mine records offices is primarily a matter for British Coal.

  Debt (Late Payment)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further action he proposes to take on the problem of late payment in relation to small businesses.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government are already addressing the problem of late payment with a range of measures including pilots with trade associations and new Government contracting terms.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish monthly figures, by volume, for imports into the United Kingdom of Brazilian rosewood (Dalbergia nigra) and afrormosia (Pericopsis elata) between July and November 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available. The United Kingdom trade classification does not separately identify Brazilian rosewood and afrormosia from other non-coniferous tropical hardwoods.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market Council held on 17 December 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  I chaired the final Internal Market Council of the British presidency on 17 December. Overall this was a successful Council ensuring a satisfactory presidency for the United Kingdom on the single market. Twelve single market measures were agreed at this Council, and 90 overall during our presidency. This last figure is a record for any presidency. This confirmed the verdict of the European Council at Edinburgh that the White Paper programme is now complete in all essential respects. The single market is now open for business.

  The Council agreed a common position on the future system for the authorisation of medicines in the Community. This package of measures comprises three directives and one regulation which establish new Community licensing procedures for human and veterinary medicines. The regulation creates a centralised licensing system for certain high technology medicines, and establishes a European Medicines Evaluation Agency to provide administrative and technical support for the new procedures.

  The directives provide for a decentralised licensing system for other medicinal products, involving mutual recognition of member states' licensing decisions, with binding arbitration in the event of disputes.

  The Council also agreed a common position on a directive harmonising laws relating to the civil use of explosives. The directive acknowledges the need to ensure that intra-Community transfers of explosives are properly controlled so that these potentially dangerous products are only shipped to those who have a legitimate reason to acquire them. The same provision will apply to domestic transfers of the explosives covered by the directive. The United Kingdom was able successfully to preserve our export controls on explosives; this helps ensure that they will not fall into the hands of terrorists in the United Kingdom, or third countries.

  The Council reached agreement on a directive harmonising the safety and performance requirements for a wide range of medicinal devices. Products covered include tongue-depressors, bandages, artificial limbs, X-ray equipment, brain scanners and electro-cardiograms. The products are classed in four categories, to ensure that the level of control over assessment of conformity with the directive's requirements is proportional to the level of risk inherent in a device. This is an important directive, which will liberalise trade in a sector with trade worth £8 billion in the Community.

  A number of significant single market measures were agreed, including common positions on the second
  314
  amendment to the machinery directive, the sixth amendment to the cosmetics directive, and directives on food hygiene, brakes of motorcycles and statistical units on industrial production. Final adoption was reached on extraction solvents, road and waterway controls on third country transport, and type approval of vehicle external projections. A regulation was agreed creating a fund for re-adaptation measures for Customs agents.

  The Council also discussed a directive on copyright in cable and satellite broadcasting, the abolition of frontier controls, a directive on biotechnological inventions, an amendment to the food additives framework directive, the sweeteners directive, a directive on food labelling, and a regulation on dual-use goods.

  I must regret the failure of the Council to reach agreement on the Community trade mark regulation. This important measure will establish a Community trade mark office. A trade mark registered with the Community trade mark office will be a unitary right having effect throughout the Community. It will be possible to enforce the rights conferred by it in a single legal action in court in one member state, with effect for all member states. We had put considerable effort into these measures during our presidency, and had cleared away a large number of reservations. However, continuing disagreement between member states over the language regime to be used at the office prevented agreement. I hope agreement can be finally reached under the incoming Danish presidency.

  VAT
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect the new arrangement for the payment of VAT one month in arrears instead of three months in arrears is having on small and medium-sized businesses in the west midlands.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The new arrangement for the payment of VAT monthly in arrears instead of quarterly in arrears applies only to the 1,600 or so largest VAT payers nationally. It will therefore have no direct effect on small and medium-sized businesses.

HEALTH

  Census
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are estimated to have been unenumerated by the 1991 census; and on what basis it has been decided that such unenumerated people will be evenly distributed across the country.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 965,000 people resident in England and Wales, or 1.9 per cent. of the population, are estimated to have not been enumerated in the 1991 census. Census figures are not themselves adjusted. However, the estimated under-enumeration has been taken into account in producing the Registrar General's provisional population estimates for England and Wales for mid-1991. These were published in OPCS Monitor PP1 92/1 on 16 October 1992, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The figure of 965,000 is estimated by combining evidence from several different sources. Where evidence was available about the geographical distribution of under-enumeration, it was taken into account. Where

  315
  insufficient evidence was available at the local level, an even distribution for each age and sex group was applied across the country as a whole, or across groupings of local areas where sufficient evidence for such groups was available. Details are given in the monitor.

  Regional Funding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice or instructions she has given to regional health authorities about the timescale within which they should move to funding districts by weighted capitation.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities (RHAs) are responsible for revenue allocations to health districts, and for managing their movement towards weighted capitation funding in a way which ensure that services to patients are not disrupted. There is no national deadline, but Ministers continue to attach importance to continued progress towards resource equalisation at district level. The following guidance was sent to all RHAs in circular FDL(92) 113, on 4 December 1992:"Regions will therefore be asked to report on their planned deployment of the 1993–94 allocation and in particular to demonstrate clear progress towards equalisation. The pace of such progress and whether it should be achieved by reducing resources allocated to districts above their capitation share is a matter for individual regions to judge in the light of local circumstances."

  Copies of the circular are available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were awaiting treatment on one year waiting lists in each specialty in December 1992; and what were the equivalent figures for April 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by specialty is published twice a year for 31 March and 30 September. The most recent figures, for 31 March 1992, are given in "Hospital Waiting List, In-Patients and Day Cases" (ISBN 1 85839 003 6)—a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy that details of the number of patients waiting for a first out-patient appointment should be collected centrally;

  (2) if she will take action to establish standards for the maximum wait for a first out-patient appointment.

  Mr. Sackville
  With over 36 million outpatient attendances each year it is not currently practical to collect information about the numbers of people waiting for out-patient appointments centrally. However, under the patients charter health authorities are required to publish information on the local standards they have set for first out-patient appointments and on performance against these targets. Regional health authorities are required to set targets for 1993–94 to build on this progress.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place a copy in the Library of the guidance notes issued to regional health authorities relating to the creation of a strategy for the disposal of clinical waste.

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will create an independent agency that can review mergers proposals, price cartels and allegations of anti-competitive practices by NHS trusts; and who has the responsibility for reviewing such matters at the present time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The national health service management executive has overall responsibility for managing the national health service internal market and therefore has responsibility for dealing with such matters.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the application of the Government's maximum pay guidelines in the public sector to those NHS trusts being set up on 1 April;

  (2) if she will issue a letter of guidance to the chairmen of NHS trusts in relation to the application of the Government pay policy to the remuneration of their emloyees as regards (a) pay increases at director level, (b) individual pay increases at other levels and (c) the total pay bill.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the chairmen of all national health service authorities on the day of the Chancellor's autumn statement, 12 November 1992, to explain the Government's policy of public sector pay restraint this year. A copy of this letter was placed in the Library. The NHS management executive will be issuing further guidance shortly.

  Juveniles (Secure Units)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for more secure units for juveniles to be built,(a) in Yorkshire and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is estimated that an additional 60 to 65 secure places nationally will be required in order to imlement the new juvenile remand provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 by the mid-1990s. It is envisaged that some 10 to 15 of these will be needed within the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many juveniles were placed in secure accommodation in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many secure places currently exist for (a) male and (b) female juvenile offenders; if she will list the units by county; and how many of the places are unoccupied.

  Mr. Yeo
  Secure units are available for the placement of any child looked after by a local authority, where the statutory criteria for restriction of liberty are met. This includes juvenile offenders.

  Information about the number of secure units in each local authority and the number of places occupied during the year and at 31 March 1991 is published in "Children accommodated in secure units during the year ending 31 March 1991 England". A copy is in the Library.

  Information about the number of admissions to secure units in England for the individual years 1984–85 to 1990–91 is also included in the publication. Information was not collected centrally for earlier years.

  The latest information about secure places is in the table.
  317

  Secure accommodation by region 31 December 1992

  Regions and Locations

  Managing authorities

  Type

  Number of places

  Northern

  New Aycliffe Royston House

  Durham

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  14 mixed

  Aycliffe Community Home Special Unit

  Durham

  Community Home (Education)

  36 mixed

  Netherton Park Elm Secure Unit

  Northumberland

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  5 mixed

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Moor Community Home

  Leeds

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  27 boys

  Sutton Place Safe Centre

  Humberside

  Community Home (Education)

  5 mixed

  North Western

  Redsands Centre Oak House Unit

  Cheshire

  Community Home (Education)

  6 mixed

  Redbank Community Home Vardy House

  Lancashire

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  6 boys

  Redbank Community Home Special Unit

  Lancashire

  Community Home (Education)

  26 boys

  St. Catherine's Community Home Laboure House

  Nugent Care Society (St. Helens)

  Community Home (Education)

  5 girls

  Briars Hey Community Home Orchard House

  Lancashire

  Community Home (Education)

  8 girls

  Dyson Hall Community Home

  Liverpool

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  8 boys

  Park House Barton Moss Secure Unit

  Salford

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  7 boys

  West Midlands

  St. John's Safe Centre

  Birmingham

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  8 mixed

  Stoke House Sherbourne Unit

  Coventry

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  8 mixed

  East Midlands

  Kesteven House

  Lincoln

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  4 mixed

  Derbyshire Children's Centre Greenacres Secure Unit

  Derby

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  5 mixed

  Amberdale Community Home

  Nottinghamshire

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  8 mixed

  Thames Anglia

  Salters

  Cambridgeshire

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  9 girls

  Thornbury House

  Oxon

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  3 boys

  London

  Middlesex Lodge Heathlands Unit

  Hillingdon

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  9 girls

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  6 boys

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  8 boys

  Frant Court Community Home

  Greenwich

  Community Home (Education)

  2 girls

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  16 boys

  Southern

  Lansdowne Children's Centre

  East Sussex

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  5 mixed

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  6 mixed

  Fairfield

  Hampshire

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  3 girls

  Glen House Intensive Care Unit Medina Unit

  Hampshire

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  8 mixed

  South Western

  Northbrook Community Home Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  Observation and Assessment Centre

  12 mixed

  Kingswood Secure Unit

  Avon

  Community Home (Education)

  20 boys

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research she has commissioned to identify the number of secure places needed to be provided by local authorities to ensure that persons aged 15 or 16 years are not remanded to prison; and if she will place copies of the research in the Library;

  (2) how many extra secure places need to be provided by local authorities to ensure that persons aged 15 or 16 years are not remanded to prison.

  Mr. Yeo
  The need for additional secure places has been assessed by a multi agency national steering group. It is determined that some 60 to 65 additional places will be required. The group's assessment was based on information for a NACRO/ACOP survey of juvenile penal remands; information provided by local authorities; and historical information about provision and use of existing secure facilities.

  Operations
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of operating theatre sessions carried out in the NHS currently every week; and what the figures were in(a) 1987 and (b)

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information for 1987–88 and 1991–921 is set out in the table. Comparable information for 1979 is not available centrally.

  Operating theatre sessions England: average number per week

  Scheduled session held in year

  Weekly rate

  1987–88

  692,804

  13,298

  1 1991–92

  792,459

  15,210

  1Provisional.

  Selected List Scheme
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 December 1992,Official Report, column 692, what evidence she has that significant savings continue to be made by the selected list scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service drugs bill is affected by many different factors and it is not possible specifically to identify the continuing effect of measures which have been taken under the selected list scheme. We nonetheless believe that such measures have exerted a continuing downward pressure on the drugs bill.

  Dioxin
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will undertake a study of the link between cancer affecting children and exposure to dioxin; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no plans to undertake such a study.

  Studies of the statistical link between exposure to possible cancer-producing substances and the incidence of cancer in children can be undertaken only where separate groups of children, exposed significantly to different levels of the substance under study, can be identified. Dioxin is present everywhere in industrialised countries at very low levels, so this is not possible. We do however keep under review the outcome of studies of the follow-up to the accident at Seveso in 1986.

  NHS Pensions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order an investigation into the management of the NHS pensioners' trust; if she will seek ways of increasing the proportion of funds paid to those in need; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The financial policy of the trust is the responsibility of the trustees.

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the recommendations made to her by Action for Sick Children into the costs of visiting children in hospital.

  Mr. Yeo
  We attach particular importance to involving parents in the care and treatment of children in hospital. The hospital travel costs scheme provides help for children, who are in families on income support or family credit or otherwise have a low income, with their expenses for travelling to and from hospital for treatment and the expenses of a companion, where this is medically necessary. Help with the cost of visiting children when in hospital may be available through the social fund to families on income support. We have decided that enhancement of existing help cannot command high priority at the present time as it would entail the diversion of national health service resources away from direct patient care and impose an additional administrative burden on hospitals. Some hospitals are able to give discretionary help from non-exchequer patient amenity funds to parents travelling long distances.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were screened for breast and cervical cancer in each year since 1987 within the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authority areas.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Table 1 Cervical screening position at 31 March 1992

  District Health Authority

  Women tested in last 5.5 years (all ages)

  Women tested in last 5.5 years target age group (20–64)

  Estimated 5.5 year coverage of female population target age group Per cent.

  Sunderland

  84,998

  78,791

  84

  Durham

  39,333

  36,517

  82

  Hartlepool

  38,159

  35,220

  86

  Source: Form KC53.

  Table 2 Breast screening—Number of women aged 50–64 screened

  Centre

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Gateshead

  9,013

  17,082

  19,627

  Newcastle

  11,856

  16,331

  21,628

  North Tees

  —

  10,416

  20,440

  Source: Form KC62.

  Data supplied by cancer screening evaluation unit.

  NHS Funds (Misappropriation)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is taken when there is a prima facie case that funds or assets of the NHS have been obtained improperly by(a) a member of the general public, (b) NHS staff, (c) executive directors, (d) non-executive directors and (e) chairmen; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health bodies maintain standing orders supported by standing financial instructions. These should identify the action to be taken in the event of loss of national health service funds or assets. Statutory auditors review these documents as part of their annual audit. The action to be taken where funds or assets appear to have been lost will depend on the circumstances of the case.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region the percentage of ambulances in Northumberland that responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 20 minutes to emergency calls for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 November 1992 at column 728. In 1987–88, the Northumbria ambulance service responded to 60 per cent. of emergency calls within seven minutes and to 97 per cent. within 14 minutes.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish a nationally funded programme of research into, and practice of, surgical techniques in the treatment and cure of epilepsy.
  321
  Mr. Yeo
  No. There are already well-established procedures for neurosurgery on people with epilepsy. It is for health authorities, within available resources, to purchase services to meet the needs of their residents including the need for epilepsy surgery.

  Alcohol and Drug Abuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish a table showing the total grant available from her Department(a) in total, (b) in revenue and (c) in capital towards the provision of (1) residential facilities and (2) non-residential facilities for (i) people with alcohol problems and (ii) people with drug problems in 1992–93 and 1993–94;

  (2) if she will publish a table showing the total grant paid by her Department (a) in total, (b) in revenue and (c) in capital towards the provision of (1) residential facilities and (2) non-residential facilities for (i) people with alcohol problems and (ii) people with drug problems in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Yeo
  Funding for drug and alcohol projects are provided directly and indirectly by the Department from a number of sources. In part grants are from small centrally administered budgets, such as the specific grant for alcohol and drug misusers, which totalled £2.1 million in 1992–93 and supported expenditure of £3 million; this budget is being increased by 9.5 per cent. to £2.3 million in 1993–94 and will support expenditure of £3.2 million. Other funds are provided locally by health authorities from their general allocations or from money specifically allocated to them for drug misuse services. In 1992–93 earmarked funding comprised:(1) £17.243 million for the development of services for drug misusers, including the expansion of services to help prevent the spread of HIV among and from drug misusers; this amount will be increased by 10.2 per cent. to £19.001 million in 1993–94;
  (2) £2.8 million towards the cost of prescribing methadone as part of a planned programme of treatment, and towards the development of pharmacy-based needle exchange schemes. Decisions on the amounts to be allocated in 1993–94 for these purposes have yet to be taken.

  Some additional funding is also provided by local authority social services departments. Details of funding from all these sources could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Harlow Wood Hospital
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the future plans for the Harlow Wood hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No final decision has been made on the long-term future of the hospital and local managers are currently considering the options.

  Stockport DHA
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) full-time nursing staff and (b) staff with management responsibilities were employed by Stockport district health authority in 1990 and at the most recent available date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In September 1990 there were 1,317 nursing and midwifery staff employed full-time and in September 1991 there were 1,053.
  322
  The number of staff employed with a management role is a matter for the district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. F. A. Russell, the chairman of Stockport health authority, for details.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population of the three special hospitals in England and Wales for the last date available were(a) female, (b) black and (c) aged under 21 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Percentage of female patients in special hospitals on 18 January 1993

  Broadmoor Per cent.

  Rampton Per cent.

  Ashworth Per cent.

  Total Per cent.

  19.8

  20.3

  11.6

  16.9

  Percentages of special hospital patients by ethnic group on 18 January 1993

  Ethnic Group

  Per cent. of patients in:

  Broadmoor Per cent.

  Rampton Per cent.

  Ashworth Per cent.

  Percentage of all patients in special hospitals

  Black—

  10.9

  11.1

  8.0

  9.9

  Caribbean

  Black—

  2.2

  0.9

  0.8

  1.3

  African

  Black—

  2.8

  0

  0

  0.8

  Other

  Indian

  1.2

  0.9

  0.8

  1.0

  Pakistani

  0.4

  0.6

  1.0

  0.7

  Bangladeshi

  0.2

  0

  0

  0.1

  Chinese

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  White

  79.8

  83.4

  86.8

  83.6

  Other

  2.2

  3.0

  2.6

  2.6

  Percentage of patients aged under 21 years in special hospitals on 18 January 1993

  Broadmoor Per cent.

  Rampton Per cent.

  Ashworth Per cent.

  Total Per cent.

  0.6

  0.9

  1.0

  0.8

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a full breakdown of the ages of the population of each of the three special hospitals in England and Wales.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information as at 18 January 1993 is given in the table.

  Special hospital

  Age band

  Broadmoor

  Rampton

  Ashworth

  Total

  < 18

  0

  0

  1

  1

  18–21

  3

  5

  5

  13

  21–25

  35

  26

  51

  112

  25–35

  181

  153

  231

  565

  35–45

  128

  200

  177

  505

  45–55

  77

  108

  104

  289

  55+

  71

  50

  58

  179

  Total

  495

  542

  627

  1,664

  NHS Employment (Hampshire)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed(a) full time and (b) part time in the national health service in Hampshire in each year since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The county of Hampshire consists of four whole DHAs; Portsmouth and South East Hampshire, Southampton and South West Hampshire, Winchester, Basingstoke and North Hampshire; and part of West Surrey and North East Hampshire DHA. As it is not possible to identify separately the information for individual units in West Surrey and North East Hampshire, the global figures have been included in the Hampshire figures given in the table.

  The figures for 1991 exclude non-professional non-medical staff1 as they were collected on the Korner aggregate forms (KM 49) and it is not possible to disaggregate the information to district level.

  Year

  Full time

  Part time

  Total

  1987

  —

  —

  28,240

  1988

  —

  —

  28,740

  1989

  15,010

  12,650

  29,060

  1990

  15,380

  12,410

  29,190

  1991

  10,600

  8,400

  19,000

  1 Non-professional non-medical staff groups include ancillary, administrative and clerical, maintenance, works, general and Senior Managers, Ambulance staff, and other non-professional non-medical staff.

  Source: Non Medical Manpower Census, Medical Manpower Census; HAP(STATS), NHSME.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures quoted are numbers not whole time equivalents.

  Dental Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 October 1992,Official Report, column 371, what plans she has to publish the report of the oral health strategy group on proposed changes to dental policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following advice from the oral health strategy group, proposals for an oral health strategy for England are still being considered.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the current effectiveness of care of the mentally disabled.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government's long-standing policy is that people with mental illness should have access to all the services they need, as locally as possible, from long-term in-patient care for the severely and chronically ill to domiciliary support for those who can live near normal lives at home.

  Research shows that patients moved from long stay mental illness hospitals to community programmes usually do well on transfer and they and their carers and relatives prefer community-based care.

  Evidence from such research both in this country and from abroad, particularly in the United States of America, strongly supports the conclusion that mentally ill people, including chronic and severe patients, can be successfully treated in the community.

  To promote the development of comprehensive, local community care services for mentally ill people a mental health task force led by David King was set up last year. It will promote and assist the development of a concerted, comprehensive and speedy implementation of our policies for mental health services, with particular regard to the replacement of large long-stay institutions by more locally based and accessible services.

  The Government are currently considering whether changes are needed to the mental health legislation to ensure the more effective delivery of care to the small minority of mentally ill people who refuse to participate voluntarily in their care programmes.

  Regional Health Authority Appointments
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will make a statement on the position of Sir Donald Wilson, currently chairman of the Mersey regional health authority, and the vacancy for the position of the chairman of the West Midlands health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: Sir Donald Wilson ceased to be chairman of the Mersey regional health authority with effect from 11 January, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed him as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority. My right hon. Friend has appointed Professor A. M. Breckenridge as chairman of the Mersey regional health authority.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

War Crimes Act 1991
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
When it is expected that the first prosecutions will be brought under the War Crimes Act 1991.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the prosecuting authorities will consider each case at the conclusion of the relevant police investigation. The investigations are continuing and I cannot predict whether any prosecutions will be initiated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is not surprising that no prosecutions have yet been brought, bearing in mind the length in time that some of the cases have been under investigation? How many detectives and other police staff are directly or indirectly employed in the investigations currently in hand? Secondly, bearing in mind that the total financial provision under the Act has escalated to £36.6 million, which is far more than was originally anticipated, at a time when we are cutting expenditure elsewhere and being told that we must pay more taxes have the Government in mind any expenditure ceiling beyond which they will repeal the Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to say the exact number of people involved in the investigation. The figure of £3 million which was given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in an Answer to the noble Lord in December is a good estimate of the cost to date. As regards the future, the Answer also contained an estimate of the total amount provided, which was about £36 million. Precisely what happens in relation to that will depend on the progress of investigations. They are necessarily difficult and complicated and it would be unwise of me to try to forecast ultimate results.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that in a defamation case in a Scottish court a few months ago a person was by implication found to be a Second World War criminal. Should not such matters be determined one way or the other through the proper procedures now available and, if possible, before too long?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that in an action of defamation brought in the Scottish courts allegations were made which certainly had a bearing, to say the least, on the question of whether the person who was the subject of the publication was guilty of war crimes. That action was determined in accordance
886
with the rules applying to civil actions for defamation. No doubt the evidence which was considered in detail by the judge in that case is important in relation to the investigation of war crimes. However, as my noble friend well knows, the standards and rules in those two types of case are very different.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, in view of possible prosecutions will the noble and learned Lord state the average age of those suspected war criminals who are currently under investigation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not easy to give an average age. However, it would be fair of me to say that they are all of considerable age.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the cost of the proceedings and the time which they take should not excuse the appalling crimes which were committed during the Second World War?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot be certain of the implications which lay behind the question I was asked about cost. I assume that it was not thought that cost would excuse any crime. However, cost may well be a relevant consideration to take into account in deciding whether a particular investigation should be pursued. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide in the light of all the circumstances, one of which no doubt is the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not consider that the time of the prosecuting authorities and the investigative authorities might be better spent investigating those who have illegally taped various telephone conversations, who bought them, how much was paid and who is responsible for them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the prosecuting authorities in England and Wales and in Scotland have quite a variety of material before them where there are allegations of criminal activity. It is a matter of no little difficulty to form a judgment about priorities among those. No one is better qualified to understand the difficulties of that kind of operation than my noble and learned friend from his years as a distinguished Attorney-General.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that if prosecutions are brought under that Act against various people, those people will have ample opportunity to defend themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certain that if prosecutions are brought the ordinary rules with regard to fairness will prevail. No person who is the subject of an allegation put forward by the prosecution will be convicted without a fair trial.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. Is it not a fact that the Chalmers-Hetherington Report went into those matters in

887
considerable detail? That includes Part II, which we understand cannot be published for obvious reasons. Why is it necessary for the police and the prosecuting authorities to go over that ground all over again?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the investigations that are required for the purposes of a prosecution need to be quite detailed. Of course, it is not necessarily the case that the only allegations that are now current are those which were made to Hetherington and Chalmers. Therefore, the investigating authorities have a large field in which to work. There is also the possibility of developments as regards the evidence; for example, the development to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred where a considerable amount of evidence was discussed in the context of an action for defamation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, do not the facts which my noble and learned friend has disclosed indicate that the measure was an expensive disaster?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I have said indicates what are the costs so far. I do not think it would be right for me to express a view on the wisdom of an Act of Parliament which proceeded on a free vote and was enacted in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, may we now be brought up to date and ask the noble and learned Lord how many alleged war criminals are at present under investigation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in England and Wales the number is in the order of 99. The level of investigation in respect of those varies a good deal from one case to another. That is one reason that I thought it right to answer the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in the way that I did. Obviously allegations are sometimes put forward at different times. One must take account of those.

Homelessness
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people are currently registered as homeless or are living rough; and what measures they propose to deal with the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, in the third quarter of 1992, 35,520 households were accepted for permanent rehousing by local authorities in England. The latest count of rough sleepers last November found 419 people sleeping rough in central London. We recently announced that a further £86 million will be made available to help rough sleepers in central London over the next three years. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing also announced on 21st December additional measures to increase the supply of short-term leased property which will be available for accommodating homeless families.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the tragic scenes, shown on television at the weekend, of bailiffs smashing their way into a council property in which there was a woman and children? While the doorway at the side was open, the bailiffs were smashing their way through the window with a sledgehammer. As a former chairman of housing in Manchester, I have no time at all for people who simply will not pay the rent. However, there appear to be an increasing number of people, among the 3,000 families evicted in London, who cannot pay the rent. Can the Minister give any further hope, in addition to what he has already said, which will relieve us of seeing those distressing scenes repeated?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord was a most effective chairman of housing in Manchester. Clearly, evictions by local authorities must be a last resort. It is for those local authorities to take the action which they believe to be most appropriate in the circumstances.
Nationally, we have undertaken a number of measures over the course of the past few months to alleviate the plight of those who find themselves without a home. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced a £750 million programme to boost the housing market. Another £30 million is being made available in London and the South-East for cash incentive schemes. We are spending the money and we believe we have the problem in hand. We are consulting with voluntary organisations to improve our policies.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understand that the £750 million must be spent by April. Is the programme of spending proceeding and will all the money be spent by the appropriate date?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend whether or not the money will be spent by the appropriate date. However, I can confirm that the programme is proceeding apace and it is reasonable to expect that the money will be spent.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the response the Minister gave to the Question. We welcome his endeavours. Does he not agree that the bulk of the problem lies with local authorities in London, particularly Westminster council? The situation creates problems for our police who nevertheless handle it well. Is it not about time that the Government, senior police officers and local authorities got together to deal with the matter on a month to month basis?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the largest incidence of sleeping rough occurs in central London. Consequently, my honourable friend the Minister responsible for housing on Monday made a speech where he launched a consultation document to discuss with voluntary organisations how best to spend the £86 million on the rough sleepers' initiative over the course of the next three years.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend tell noble Lords what proportion of the people who are

889
sleeping rough in our towns and cities have been prematurely discharged from mental hospitals where they were regarded as mentally ill, and what is being done about that? Will he also tell us to what extent people who are living in that way, but who are not mentally ill, have refused to accept local authority accommodation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend an exact figure but it is understood that there are some people who suffer from mental illness who end up on the streets. I can also confirm that the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have a number of schemes specifically aimed at counselling those people, either to find them suitable hostels or give them appropriate help.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while I appreciate that London and the South-East are in most serious need of help and that special government funds have been made available to deal with the problem there, a similar problem exists in other areas and in other regions. Is the Minister considering grants for cities such as Glasgow and even Edinburgh or Liverpool which have similar problems that require urgent attention?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as already stated, the primary responsibility lies with local authorities. However, this year we are providing £6.1 million of funding from the Department of the Environment for the National Homeless Advice Service to provide advice to all those who are homeless or who are at risk of being homeless and to fund 150 projects nationally run by voluntary organisations to provide direct practical help to the single homeless. We are not complacent about the matter either as regards London or nationally.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that unfortunately a large proportion of the people who are now homeless are homeless as a direct result of marital breakdown? The man of the family is forced to leave home and is often sleeping rough on the streets having lost his job.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I confirm the fact that one of the major causes of homelessness is the breakdown of relationships, whether marital or other relationship.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the measures he and his honourable friend in another place have announced are welcome but founder on the one essential fact that until we can provide enough affordable housing at the far end of the scale we will never begin to solve the problem of homelessness? All the expedients that have been announced are only scratching the surface of the problem. Thousands are trapped in hostels and are unable to escape into permanent accommodation and thereby free hostel accommodation for the homeless because no permanent accommodation is being built for them. Does not the Minister consider that such accommodation is an essential feature of any future programme?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, one problem is the increasing number of households comprising single parents and people who want to live on their own. That figure has increased faster than the level of new house building which has over the past few years been at a record level. As regards the figure for temporary accommodation, I am delighted to inform the noble Lord that it fell by 23 per cent. in the 12 months to the end of September.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Minister agrees that only homes can house the homeless, will he permit local authorities to spend the £5 billion of capital receipts—their own money—on
new housing, thus providing work for the workless and homes for the homeless?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have allowed local authorities to spend their capital receipts in the current year on providing the kind of things the noble Baroness suggests.

Hardship Payments: Suspension
2.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the concerns expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee about the withdrawal of income support hardship payments from unemployed people thought not to be actively seeking work, they will arrange for payment of benefits to continue until cases have been heard by adjudicators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, no. The effect of such a concession would be to undo the regulations which came into effect on 3rd December 1992.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that the principal tenet of English justice is that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty? To deprive a person of benefit and all the supplements that go with that — that is, the passported benefits—before he has even been proved not to be actively seeking work is against natural justice.
Lord Henley: My Lords, no decision to suspend will be taken until there has been a very detailed personal interview, with the individual being given every opportunity to explain his circumstances. If at the next two-weekly signing-on day the normal conditions are satisfied, payment of benefit will be resumed irrespective of whether or not the adjudication process has been concluded. But we would in fact very much hope that that adjudication process has been concluded.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee and the chief adjudication officer have both expressed concern about the decision to suspend benefit in the first place, and given that two-thirds of

891
those investigated whose benefit is suspended for these offences are subsequently found innocent of any impropriety, does the Minister think it decent to fine people by withholding their benefit before they are found guilty of any impropriety, and these the poorest of the poor?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, we have already responded to the Social Security Advisory Committee and we have responded to some of her particular points. There is no need for me to rehearse all the arguments that have been produced in this House and in another place in debates before Christmas. As regards the adjudication statistics, I think I ought not to correct the noble Baroness but make it clear to her that if she looks purely at those cases that go to adjudication on actively seeking work alone—that is, only on that particular matter—she will find that only a third are successful: 70 per cent. are in fact disallowed benefit. I think the noble Baroness would find that the figures are even higher if she looked purely at those relating to income support and not those relating to unemployment benefit.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister seems to be enunciating a curious principle: that if 70 per cent. of people are found guilty of an offence, then all should be penalised. What effect would that have on our criminal justice system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that in 70 per cent. of cases people are found not to have been actively seeking work. In all cases the individual is given a very long interview and adequate opportunities to explain his position and to explain why he is not prepared actively to seek work. We do not see any case for extending his right to abuse the system any further.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not considerable danger in drawing a false analogy between the burden of proof and standard of proof in criminal cases and the case of those who are seeking support from social security?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a very valid point. I have to say that there is nothing new in the right to suspend benefit. There has always been a power for the Secretary of State to suspend benefit where there is a doubt that the conditions of benefit have not been fulfilled.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, where a person is not actively seeking employment, there is a case for looking at a scheme of workfare?
Lord Henley: My Lords, workfare takes us on to a rather wider question. The point that I should like to make is that the actively-seeking-work rules have worked very well despite the allegations as to what would happen which were made by the Opposition some two or three years ago. The actively-seeking-work rules have worked very well over the past three
892
or four years. We are not changing the actively-seeking-work rules; we have merely brought in a sanction for those who abuse them.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is there a definition of actively seeking work? If there is a definition, will the Minister please explain what it is? For example, is it in order for someone to say to the investigating officer that he is actively seeking to be a Member of Parliament at the next election? Would that fall within the definition of actively seeking work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not speculate on whether seeking election to Parliament in four or five years time would count as actively seeking work. Actively seeking work means exactly that—actively seeking work. Reasonability is taken into account. Elaborate guidance is issued to our adjudication officers and to officers in both the employment service and the Department of Social Security as to how they should interpret those words.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that when the department suspends benefit while a case is under investigation the claimant also loses all passported benefits, including housing benefit, is the Minister really comfortable that such sharp fines should apply to a doubt—to use his word—rather than to an offence?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, I am perfectly satisfied.

BBC: Expenditure
3.2 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the £50 million of BBC licence payers' money recently overspent can be properly accounted for.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the audit committee of the BBC has reported that the money in question was used to make programmes from which viewers will benefit in the future. The Government are of course concerned that a significant overspend should have arisen on the BBC's network television budget; but it is important to recognise that last year the BBC as a whole came within its budget.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I believe that it would be in order to congratulate the chairman of that committee on the speed with which he conducted his inquiry, and on the recognition that some reform is necessary and desirable and will be put in hand. Can my noble friend ensure that steps are taken so that any overspends which may arise are revealed speedily and do not exceed £50 million before action is taken and an inquiry begun?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, a net overspend of £38 million on the network television budget for 1991–92 came to light when the accounts for that year were produced last May. As I have said, the BBC as a whole came within its budget. The problem was confined to one directorate. The matter was immediately referred to the BBC's external auditors. The report of the

893
auditors was subsequently placed before the audit committee. That is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who is vice-chairman of the board of governors. The BBC published the audit committee's report on 3rd December.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should be gratified by receiving the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing; but I am grateful. As the Minister kindly said, I chair the audit committee, and I should be glad to help your Lordships whenever I can. As the Minister also said, the overall budget is in balance. Is he aware that any overspend on network television, which I very much regret, was offset by underspending elsewhere within the BBC's budget? Is he also aware that the problem arose because of complex systems and controls, both of which have now been corrected and new controllers put in place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful for that explanation by the noble Lord. As he said, the BBC has implemented a number of measures to deal with the identified shortcomings of control which, if they had not been corrected, would have led to continuing overspending during the current year and in future years. A new finance team has been appointed within network television. The BBC's internal audit capacity is being strengthened. The relevant financial systems are being reviewed and improvements are being made.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the external auditors had reported on this matter to the internal audit committee of the BBC. Do not the external auditors have a responsibility to report to somebody outside the BBC; and, if so, to whom?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not sure of the answer to that question, but I believe that the external auditors should report to the governors and the chairman of the BBC.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, bearing in mind that the House has been advised that the losses suffered were compensated for by savings elsewhere and the budget met, that the people responsible have gone and new people and new financial systems are in place, and that the report of the audit committee was openly published, is there any point in pursuing this vendetta any further?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any vendetta. I am here purely to answer any questions which are asked on subjects which relate to my department.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will resent the suggestion that there is a vendetta? Ought we not to congratulate my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for drawing attention to a matter which we would not have known about if he had not asked his Question?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said yesterday, the Government have the fullest confidence in the chairman of the BBC and the board of governors, and their management of the BBC.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, all speeches should be limited to seven minutes. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform with the spirit of these short debates if the speeches were kept within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Social Security Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on 28th January.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Select Committee on Broadcasting
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Ardwick be appointed to the Select Committee on Broadcasting in place of the Baroness Phillips (deceased) and that the Lord Morris of Castle Morris be appointed to the Select Committee on Procedure of the House in place of the Lord Carter. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proportional Representation
3.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the case for and against adopting a system of proportional representation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I put this subject down when Parliament returned after the general election in the hope that I would be successful in the ballot within a few months. My intention is to initiate an informed and analytical debate, unaffected by immediate electoral considerations or temptations.
In the first months of last year, during the pre-election skirmishing, at the hustings and in the media reporting, an impression was given that a change to proportional representation (PR) was a fairly simple operation and that a formula for counting votes in a different way could be quickly

895
adopted, producing fairer results. It was of course only one of many subjects at the general election and could be given only brief mention and superficial consideration. PR deserves better than that because such a change requires other important changes in our political practices which have not yet been taken fully into account by many commentators or the general public.
For example, PR would involve the acceptance of coalition governments from time to time because it would be much less likely that one party would gain an overall majority. In Britain coalitions have occurred rarely—in wartime and in perceived national crises. "Hung" parliaments, now regarded as awkward and to be avoided, would be common rather than exceptional. Only if adversarial politics had been replaced by consensus attitudes would the description "hung" no longer apply and would be dropped. However, I suggest that it will not be easy for the other place to change quickly from its present adversarial traditions. There would often be lapses of time after elections before results were known or governments formed. The very recent situation in the Republic of Ireland is relevant. It was six days before final results were known and seven weeks before a government could be formed. I suggest that the British public would find that disturbing unless they were well prepared for it.
Another change to be foreseen is that programmes adopted by governments after elections are likely to be modifications of the pre-election proposals of those political parties involved; they may be compromises agreed in post-election negotiations. That is very different from our present practice. At present it would be open to the objection that commitments were being abandoned. Party manifestos would probably disappear.
There is a bright side to this. The programme adopted by a government might then have the support of as much as 80 per cent. of the voters rather than about 40 per cent., as can happen now. In case any noble Lord thinks that I am about to present all the possible objections to PR and to reject it, I should make it clear that I favour change to such a system. That is largely because I am an optimist. I hope that our present adversarial system will be modified in time.
Time is needed to choose the most appropriate system of PR for the United Kingdom and to prepare the public for the consequences which would be very different from what they had become used to. That requirement for prior work, consultation and dissemination of information has been underestimated by some strong supporters of PR.
Our present system which is known as "first-past-the-post" should not be abandoned until the circumstances for change are suitable, and the public have been prepared. The present system helps to provide strong government because it produces the executive within Parliament besides Members being elected. Particular attributes of our present system are that it is simple to understand and only one vote per person is needed. There is a single Member for each
896
constituency who can identify with it personally. The results are known within a few days and a government can be formed immediately.
I now turn to the subjects of strong government and stability. With regard to strong government, no government in the United Kingdom since World War Two has received more than 50 per cent. of the total vote although that was near at times. However, several had overall majorities. For example, in 1987, the Government won 42 per cent. of the vote and had a majority of 102 seats. They were fully able to govern without making pacts.
Our present system is based on very large parties —usually two. Unless a party is above a certain size in membership and support, it has no prospect of becoming a government on its own. Foreign observers sometimes comment that our two largest parties are in essence themselves coalitions, combining their left and right wings, and, a topical example at present, their pro and anti-Europe factions. Given the evolution of those elements of our present system, the system works, is understood and should not be discarded lightly.
It has some less favourable characteristics which changes could improve. It now matters more where a party's votes are cast or concentrated than how many there are. Conservative votes in strongly held Labour constituencies do not carry the smallest weight in the UK results as a whole. The same is true of Labour votes in strong Conservative constituencies, usually in the South. I regret that this accentuates the North-South divide. If one considers the figures as a whole, the country is not as polarised as it appears to be from first-past-the-post results.
Our present system also encourages tactical voting in which the voter deliberately votes for a candidate who is not his first preference. In contrast, most PR systems give some weight to the first preference. It has some effect, although it may be small on the overall results. While our system is simple, it can thus lead to cynicism in voting intentions.
On stability, the first-past-the-post system gives the winning party an advantage of more seats than its share of the total vote would apportion under PR. That assists stability even in adversarial circumstances. But for how long, my Lords? It is for not more than five years—until the next general election. When the government's majority has been small, as in 1951, 1964 and 1974, another general election has followed within a year and a half. When parties in government have changed, major reverses of policy have taken place. Those have been signalled beforehand by the main party in opposition. Industry, commerce and financial firms do not regard that as stability. They have to look ahead for much longer periods than four to five years. It is not surprising that the CBI has publicly favoured PR for several years, although with many of the qualifications that I put forward today.
There is then the important question of choosing the system of PR to be adopted. There are many systems, but I believe that only four are suitable for any reform in this country. That decision is not one that can be taken overnight. Some leading supporters of PR disagree among themselves on what would be

897
the best system. There must be time for discussion and consultation. I remind the House of the four likely possibilities.
The first—it is not strictly PR, although it is included in electoral reform options—is the alternative vote. By use of a second round of polling, and eliminating losers, it ensures that the elected person has been supported by at least 50 per cent. of the final vote. France is the prime example of that system.
The second is the additional member system (AMS). That is practised in Germany where half the representatives are elected directly by the first-past-the-post system. Voters have a second vote for a party. The other half of the chamber is composed of names from party lists, proportionally taken on a regional basis. There are no by-elections. Mid-term vacancies are filled from the party lists.
The third possibility is the single transferable vote system (STV). Several members represent each constituency. In the Republic of Ireland there are usually three to five members in each constituency. Voters mark preferences for any or all of the candidates in order. The thorough reallocation of preferences which follows is complex and slow.
The fourth system is party lists. That also entails multi-member constituencies. In Sweden the average is 11 members per constituency. That is the most used system in Europe, including Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. The votes are for parties, not for individual candidates. There are variations, but the principle is that seats are allocated to parties according to the amount of support in the election. The parties, having put forward their lists, assign seats to individuals, taking account of preferences indicated by the voters where the system so provides.
Those are the four main options. In some applications, thresholds are included to avoid large numbers of small parties. For example, a party must obtain at least 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the total vote, either in a country or in a region, to be considered.
Noble Lords will have observed that there are two further novelties for the British public in two of these systems, in addition to those which I mentioned earlier. The first is multi-member constituencies. We have not had them in Britain since 1885, except for a very few which were abolished in 1950.
The second is lists, produced by parties, of candidates who gain seats without having stood in constituencies during the general election. That is a completely new notion for British electors and likely to be objectionable to some, although it has been accepted before long in other countries. My point is that it needs to be thoroughly explained and understood beforehand.
The Hansard Society in the 1970s commissioned an inquiry into electoral reform in the UK and its report was published in 1976. The chairman was my noble friend Lord Blake who, I am glad to know, is to speak today. He was well qualified to chair the commission: besides being an eminent historian and commentator on constitutional and very recent political matters, he is highly numerate. I am well aware of his numeracy because, as he has told the House on a previous
898
occasion, I once had the privilege of instructing him in mathematics. That was in mathematics and gunnery when he was an officer cadet at Larkhill in 1940 and I was a captain instructing his squad. Other members of the commission were the noble Baroness Lady Seear and my noble friend Lord Holderness who, I am also glad to see, is down to speak.
The commission recommended change to proportional representation, both for the other place in the UK Parliament and for the European Parliament. But it also made most of the reservations about adversarial politics and the need for preparations beforehand that I have been making today. The commission would have used either AMS or STV. The majority preferred AMS, but the noble Baroness opted for STV and that was recorded.
The kind of AMS advocated was as follows: three-quarters of the Commons in single member constituencies (first-past-the-post); there would be one vote for candidate and party; a quarter of the Chamber would be from the additional seats to be allocated within regions, to redress distortions and approach the proportions of votes cast in accordance with a formula. There would be a 5 per cent. threshold in each region. This was a modified version of the German system. Although in Germany there have been coalition governments for most of the post-war period, they have not been weak. PR does not automatically mean coalitions; it just means that they are more likely.
Changing to a system of PR is less difficult where elections are to an assembly from which a government or executive does not also have to be formed. Questions of hung parliaments, coalitions and compromising on programmes do not arise.
The European Parliament is a particular case of this kind and a challenge for the UK. In this House, a sub-committee of our Select Committee on the European Communities examined the possibilities and presented a report in January 1983. I was a member of that sub-committee and I am surprised to see that I was able to attend almost all its meetings. Although it did not make a recommendation, I believe that its report and minutes are useful to anyone studying those matters.
There was also a recent exercise in the United Kingdom—although unofficial—on the possibility of a Scottish Assembly by a body calling itself the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It recorded less than a year ago broad agreement on PR. There is nothing surprising about that. There was little agreement, however, on the system—and there is nothing surprising about that either. But I should relate that the convention's deliberations were complicated by another factor not expected when the work began. There emerged a requirement that the assembly should contain the same number of women as men. Admirable as that concept may be, it makes the procedure even more difficult. I make clear that in this debate I do not regard the gender factor as a necessary one for PR and I hope that I shall not be accused of sexism in saying that.
If PR is eventually adopted in this country, I suggest the following basic requirements: the system

899
must be acceptable to the electorate and not too complicated to understand. The close relationship between a member and the constituency should be maintained and the aim should be to minimise the occasions when a government's programme has the support of considerably less than half the electorate.
When politics are less divisive, all this will be more acceptable, so providing conditions for political parties trying to put together those policies upon which they broadly agree, rather than emphasising and campaigning on the differences.
Until that time arrives, I hope that there will not be a repetition of the paradox last year. Before the general election, voices were heard warning of a hung Parliament which would paralyse the effectiveness of a new government. The same voices proposed that a new government in that situation should then do a deal to introduce PR immediately. With what result? It would have had the anomalous result of hung parliaments for ever more.
I hope that attitudes and circumstances will change in ways which will make PR attractive and not too difficult to adopt. Until then, a measured approach to PR is advisable in this country, if the necessary changes are eventually to be carried out successfully. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with the agreement of my noble friend Lord Shackleton I have exchanged places with him on the list of speakers. I add that this was not at my instigation in case it should be thought that I am trying to get in early!
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating the debate. The subject is nothing new; it is therefore interesting to find out why at this stage there should be increased interest in it. Last year there were two polls, MORI and ICM, both of which declared in favour of a change from our present system to one of proportional representation. It could, of course, be argued in the light of the poll experience last year that it all depends on how the question is put.
It is not my intention in seven minutes to go in detail into all the various systems that would be possible in our electoral system. They have been debated a number of times over many years. Pamphlets on the subject have appeared throughout the past century. The earliest publication I have is a Fabian document on objections to proportional representation, published in 1924. The arguments have continued since that time. We have had these discussions and debates over a long period.
Why, then, the current interest? First, I believe that there is growing support for the view that seats gained should have a relation to votes obtained. It is increasingly recognised that that does not apply in the United Kingdom. There is also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that at no election since 1935 has a single party obtained more than 50 per cent. of the overall votes. For all those years, no government in the United Kingdom have secured a majority of the votes cast.
900
It has also been stressed that, at the general election last year, 40 seats were won without the successful candidate having an overall electoral majority. In 1987, 43 per cent. of candidates did not have an overall majority in the constituencies for which they were elected.
On the redistribution procedure for constituencies, the objective is for constituency electorates to be as equal as possible and the intention is that each elector's vote should be equal to another's, no matter what the constituency.
As the noble Lord stated, there are areas of the country where no matter what efforts are put in, no matter how many votes are secured by a particular party, it has very little effect on the number of seats gained. The only effect is that the party does not gain many seats at all. Is that a situation we desire to perpetuate? I give two constituency examples. In last year's general election there were five candidates in Inverness. The MP was elected with only 26 per cent. of the votes. At Islwyn, which had five candidates, the MP was elected with 74 per cent. of the votes. How does one relate those two examples?
There is also the matter of developments within the European Community. Of the 12 member states the United Kingdom is the only one which does not have some sort of system of proportionality. We are the only one which has a first-past-the-post system.
There are, therefore, two particularly important questions: what would be the advantages of any change from the present electoral system; and what might be the consequences of any change? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, endeavoured to describe some of the consequences that might ensue from any change. It was those questions which prompted the Labour Party to set up its working party—the Plant Commission—to examine electoral systems. It is not my intention, and I would not be permitted, to report on the work of the Plant Commission. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Plant will speak towards the end of the debate. The committee has not come to any conclusions. But it analysed in some detail what political representation is. The interim report published in July 1991 (consisting of 109 pages) is one of the best records of a discussion of these problems. I felt very privileged to be a party to those discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asks the House first to consider all the functions of the various institutions of our representational system and then to assess and look very carefully at the various electoral systems, the problems that they could introduce and the problems that could also arise in a different way in different institutions. There is not just the House of Commons to consider. One has also to consider the future of the second Chamber; possible regional assemblies in Scotland and Wales; possible regional assemblies in the English provinces; the position in local government; and representation in the European Parliament.
Some systems appear to, and perhaps do, provide greater fairness than the present system. But a number

901
of those systems are in no way proportional. They institute a different type of system from first-past-the-post without having any proportionality.
In considering the systems, we are not helped by those who have endeavoured to put forward PR by concentrating on one system alone. That is why on many occasions in this House I have criticised the single transferable vote. It contains some anomalies; it has some iniquities; and, if we are talking about a change, we should not be considering just one system.
In seven minutes, one cannot say a great deal. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, dealt with the possibility of governments not being effective or firm. If one looks at the international scene, one can pick out countries where quite definitely the PR system has led to weakness. Israel is one, Italy another. But one could pick other countries where, under the PR system, there are firm governments, sensible governments and governments that get on with the job.
The position of hung parliaments has been mentioned. I understand that a quarter of our present county councils have hung administrations. Some 100 district councils also have hung councils. It would be interesting to know from the experiences of people who serve on those councils what the result is.
There is no perfect system. I recognise that. But despite what I have said on previous occasions, and despite my background, I believe the time has come seriously to consider whether we should not change from first-past-the-post. That means, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell said, analysing very carefully exactly what different systems would entail. Any change should come from a consensus. I believe that the public in this country wants a change of some kind. I hope that this debate may assist in getting on with the job of discussing possible systems.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the whole House will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, not only for choosing this extremely important subject for debate this afternoon, but for the admirably clear and cogent way in which he introduced it. I must say that his revelation that he was himself in favour of proportional representation did not come as a surprise to me, as I have happy memories of working with him on this very subject long before I had the honour of being a Member of this House.
There are two cases for electoral reform. One is the narrow one; the other is the broad one. The narrow case is that of unfairness and misrepresentation. It is not just a question of party misrepresentation—although it is a very serious anomaly that it takes about 42,000 votes to elect a Conservative or Labour MP and nearly 300,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat. It is not just geographical misrepresentation—although it is a very serious anomaly that two-thirds of Conservative MPs of the governing party come from a line south of the Wash to the Severn, and that Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester are entirely Conservative-free cities, albeit many thousands of people in those cities vote for the Conservative Party. One can make a very noticeable
902
comparison with 1951, when there was a rather comparable Conservative majority of 17. Yet at that time the broadness of the base of the Conservative parliamentary party was such that it represented all parts of the country and all classes of people rather than preponderantly suburbia and the rural areas. No other comparable democracy has a system which draws its fault line exactly down the line of socio-economic disadvantage. Truly, Disraeli's "two nations" are still with us.
It is not just a matter of misrepresentation in terms of MPs. The noble Lord referred to women MPs. We have fewer women MPs than most other democracies. Switzerland and Italy, which are two countries far from being politically correct and socially progressive in terms of their attitudes to women, nevertheless have many more, and a much higher proportion of women MPs than we do. That is a product of the electoral system. But the case is overwhelmingly one of personal misrepresentation. The majority of people in this country do not get the government they want; and a very substantial minority—over 40 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—do not get the MP they want. The consequence is that there is a very low level of ownership in the political system. Very many people do not feel that the system is theirs and that Parliament belongs to them.
The broad case for changing the electoral system —for which, incidentally, there is support in all parties, and one of the most impressive things about this debate this afternoon, as has been the case in previous debates in your Lordships' House, is that support comes from across all paths of the political spectrum—is, in the end, about the health and quality of our democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the issue of strong government. The ultimate strong government is perfectly simple: you have a dictator. Is it not time we started to think in terms of good government? We could do with a bit more good government in this country, government whose policies rested unequivocally on the support of the majority, policies that persisted over time because they commanded popular assent: less of the poll tax.
It is probably not too fanciful to suggest that we are faced with something of a crisis of confidence in our institutions as a whole and hence this is a timely debate. Neither the Crown nor the courts, neither Whitehall nor Westminster are immune from legitimate criticism. There is now an unequivocal case for us as legislators to look at the case for democratic renewal and regeneration in this country. The first indispensable step is to reconnect people to their Parliament; to achieve for ourselves in Britain what we have prescribed and sometimes achieved for others —self-determination and self-government. That means electoral reform.
I realise that at the end of the debate this afternoon the noble Earl will play a straight bat. We have a majority in the country for electoral reform but it will not suit the Government. I should therefore like to address myself to my friends in the Labour Party. There are extremely welcome signs of progress on the issue in the Labour Party. In a slow but evolutionary way, over a series of debates, the speeches of the noble

903
Lord, Lord Underhill, have moved closer and closer to outright advocacy of electoral reform. We on these Benches welcome that.
There are other welcome signs of progress from the Transport and General Workers' Union to the engineering union; from the Scottish Labour Party to the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform; from a two-thirds majority of new Labour MPs who support reform to Mr. Robin Cook. The support is swelling in the Labour Party for a fair electoral system. The puffs of smoke that are being emitted from the Plant Commission appear to be promisingly drifting in the right direction. But I wonder where stands the inscrutable Labour leadership on this important issue.
Some leading Labour figures—I understand why —say that for the party to support electoral reform would be an admission that Labour cannot win on its own. I know that that argument bulks largely in the calculations of those who perhaps approve of electoral reform but do not feel that the Labour Party should come out for it. But I must tell my friends on these Benches that should Labour not support electoral reform, and thereby offer this country the prospect of a broadly-based alternative to this endless Conservative Government, they will never win at all.
I believe that it is make-your-mind-up time for the Labour Party. Do they want to put themselves firmly, as I hope they do, in the camp of reforming our democracy and of becoming a modern European society? Or do they prefer to continue to dwell endlessly with the Conservatives in the run-down Ruritania which Britain has sadly become? I urge the Labour Party to embrace this cause.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, this is a subject which will not go away it seems —surprisingly because it has never won acceptance by the majority of opinion. That is largely because the ins and outs of Parliament have never managed to arrive at the same point at the same time. It is also probably the case that opinion in the country at large still prefers the simple majority system which is judged to have and deliver an approximate kind of political justice; or, what is variously called stable or strong government. Those may be two rather different commodities but we all feel some sense of attachment to them as a distinctly-felt part of our national tradition.
I do not dissent from the idea that the simple majority system has served the nation rather well in the past, on the longest perspective. It has contrived somehow, and perhaps in defiance of logic and mathematical probability, to give us a series of workable political results in a crucial period of our history—that is, the two centuries of gradual transition from the politics of patronage and privilege to parliamentary democracy.
All the same, simple majority has considerable disadvantages. First, it shows a definite bias in favour of two dominant parties in the House of Commons. That may not greatly matter if both parties are close to the centre of the political spectrum at large. But there have been moments in the past 20 years when
904
that essential condition was not met, and when both parties in succession occupied positions closer to the political fringe. By happy chance that did not occur simultaneously, and self-interest and logic having prevailed over ideology, both parties have now returned closer to the centre. Your Lordships may feel that the mechanism is thus self-correcting, and I agree that it may look like that. But experience and caution suggest to me that we cannot always rely on that result. Ideologists are often, by their nature, blinkered in pursuit of their goal.
The second large disadvantage of simple majority is that the entry of a third party as a serious contender is rendered extremely difficult. In our system it is hard for a party which has lost its way, or its relevance, to be replaced by another. The long period—say three decades earlier this century—which it took for the Labour Party to supersede the old Liberal Party illustrates the point.
I suggest that those shortcomings are increasingly evident to many people. It is not difficult to understand why PR systems have attracted continuing interest in this country from the days of Bentham and Mill to the present. We should not allow the apparent acceptability of simple majority to serve as a kind of permanent certificate for the future. Such a rough and ready method of conducting our political affairs could easily produce a false and misleading result.
My suggestion is a modest one—thatthere is a case for some careful and limited experiment with alternatives. We have already begun to do that in Northern Ireland; and if we find PR acceptable there, there is no reason why we should regard it as permanently off the agenda in the rest of the United Kingdom.
We should not forget that the progenitors of PR in the last century were British, and as a principle it was approved by a Speaker's Conference as long ago as 1918. We used it for 30 years from 1918 as a method of electing Members from university seats to the House of Commons. I suggest that the obvious step is to sanction its use for elections to the European Parliament. I recall that we are committed by the Treaty of Rome, Article 138(3) to that principle and also by the terms of the Council decision of 20th September 1976, which binds us to find a uniform electoral procedure. I believe that we came close to reaching agreement on that, using a PR system, 10 years or so ago. I hope that we can arrive at that point again.
I should like to say something about the experience of PR in Italy. That is often, I believe, misunderstood in this country, where the Italian example is cited as a reason for rejecting PR here. It is commonly said that PR in Italy has caused weak government and constant changes. That is a very topsy-turvy way of looking at it. The problem in Italy was to devise an electoral law appropriate for a country where there were two large political parties—the Christian Democrats and the communists—each holding around one-third of the national vote.
Had Italy practised a simple majority system since the war, I have little doubt that the communists could have won an election, and in the days of the cold war,

905
one such victory would have been enough. The purpose of the Italian PR system was to enable the non-communist majority to win sufficient seats in Parliament to enable them to form a non-communist coalition. Seen in that light PR was the saviour of parliamentary democracy in Italy. Of course, it brought troubles in its train, and I shall not dwell on them. I note that communism having evaporated in Italy as elsewhere, there is now a move to reform the Italian voting system. I expect that they will retain a substantial element of PR, whatever system they adopt.
I have examined the Government's position on the question of the European Parliament elections. So far as I can make out, the last authoritative statement from the Government Bench was given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on 12th March 1991, (at col. 71 of Hansard) when he told the House that,
"The Government will consider any proposals for a uniform procedure for the European Parliament whenever such proposals are put forward".
That is not such a forthcoming statement as it might appear, as this country is seen abroad as being responsible for blocking proposals in the past. I hope that the Government will feel able to look at the question again, perhaps after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty is completed. An indication of willingness to proceed would open the door and help to repair the damage done to our reputation in the European Community, which resulted from the lengthy procedures for ratification which we are now employing.
If we wish our electoral system to reflect both our political convictions and the desirability of broad consensus of action, PR is much the most likely method to produce the result we want.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the one thing that has become very clear indeed from this debate is that the adoption of any of the various methods of PR—my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in his admirable speech indicated that there are at least four of them—would undoubtedly be highly complicated and almost certainly not fully understood by the great majority of the electorate.
The electorate today understands our system, the system of single member constituencies, with whoever achieves the heaviest vote in a constituency being elected to represent it. Whatever view your Lordships take of the merits, that is a concept which is very easily and fully understood. Your Lordships must face the fact that to move to any of the other systems about which we have been hearing this afternoon would produce a situation in which very large numbers of the voters would not understand what was happening and what it was all about. If one happens to believe in the working of a democracy, that would seem to be a considerable disadvantage flowing from that system.
The great advantage of our system is that it gives strong government. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, seemed to think that strong government is equivalent to dictatorship. I do not believe that many of your Lordships think that. But what is important in these very difficult times, when the
906
handling of the British economy involves skill, determination and courage, is that one should have strong government. Our electoral system helps to conduce to that because, as we have seen in the years since the war, it provides in general that one will get governments with a complete overall majority able to govern and governments who, though not supported by a majority of the electorate, are supported by very substantial elements in it, governments who have more public support than any of the other parties which are against them. That is a very important aspect of our present system which I feel we should be very hesitant in any decision to discard.
Our system results in governments who can govern and governments who have no alibis if they make a mess of things. If a government do not have a majority in Parliament, there is every excuse if things go wrong for that government to say, "We would have got things right if we had been allowed to, but our allies, colleagues and temporary supporters would not allow us to". Under our system a government have no such alibi. A government, supported by a majority in another place, are answerable, without excuses, for what they do or what they do not do. That is a very valuable part of our democracy.
After all, what is one seeking from a general election? I do not think one is seeking a mathematically exact indication of the views of different political parties and different voters. We arc seeking a government who can govern, and can govern with the support of at any rate a very substantial element in the country. That is a product of our system which we should be very cautious indeed in deciding to discard. It works; and it works on the whole very satisfactorily and very sensibly.
It also works so as not to have frequent general elections. If one has a government, as one undoubtedly would under PR, who in most cases have no overall majority, one would have frequent dissolutions of Parliament when that government lose control of the legislature or lose what they regard as vital measures. Instead of having, as we have under our system, a Parliament that generally lasts for four years or so, one would have quite frequent elections. Is that an advantage? Is that what we really want? Will that help the working of this country? What we are concerned with above all is a system which will help the efficient administration of this country, help it towards prosperity and help it to do its job. To dismember it and substitute a system in which no party has a majority, in which there is no strong central element of government with public support, would be to sacrifice the reality of that for what seems to me, with due respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, a rather theoretical advantage.
In the minute that remains to me I have only two other points to make. First, our system of single member constituencies is an extremely good one. One has an individual member of another place with knowledge of his constituency after he has been there for some years and answerable individually and personally to the electors. It would be a great mistake to substitute for that a number of separate members,

907
all of whom jointly represent that constituency. My other point is that one would have, as I have already indicated, frequent elections.
We have evolved in this country a very good system. It has reached its present state of evolution with universal franchise only in this century. It works. With all the other problems that we face, in the economy, in finance and in government, to discard that system in favour of one or other of what are thought theoretically to be more justifiable systems of proportional representation would be, in the view of many of us, a terrible mistake.
3.57 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, an old friend associated with the Oxford Union for many years told me that in his time the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the finest orator he recalled. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, another fine Oxford speaker, will confirm that verdict, but at any rate I bear that in mind in listening to him. It leads me to view the noble Lord's remarks with great suspicion. I am nervous of fine oratory, which is often indistinguishable from rhetoric. We all recall that Saint Augustine was professor of rhetoric and later described himself as having been a professor of lies. So I view the noble Lord's remarks very carefully.
One of the noble Lord's remarks was so feeble that no one but a fine orator could have offered it and made it sound fairly good. It was the suggestion that the British public, alone among the peoples of the world, is incapable of understanding proportional representation. Speaking as an Irishman, one is well aware that the Irish people have understood it perfectly well for many years, and Ireland is not the only country. That remark was not tenable.
I have toyed with the question of PR for many years. I toyed with it as a student and I toyed with it when I was teaching pupils such as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and others. I have always recognised the abstract argument that PR produces the best reflection of public opinion. On the other hand we all agree that an abstract argument is not all that should be taken into account in making political decisions. However, after all these years I have come to the conclusion that proportional representation should be adopted in this country. I say frankly that that is in the interests of my own party.
Although there is some prejudice against interrupting speakers in these short debates, I do not mind being interrupted on this point. Is anyone going to say that it is not the duty of a party member to consider the interests of his party? If he believes his party to be of great value to the country, it is his duty to consider such matters. Therefore, if one is a public spirited person, one must consider, among other factors, how change will affect one's own party.
When I joined the Labour Party more than 50 years ago, having belonged to something else unmentionable before, I said that I believed that all human beings are of equal and infinite importance. I said that then and I say that now. It is a view which may be held within the Labour Party and also outside it. Not all
908
my socialist intellectual colleagues thought that that was the most important thing. Some of them spoke in terms of the class factor. I remember one very gifted professor of philosophy addressing a middle-class audience in this way: "Well, comrades, they tell me there is a boom on. What does a boom mean to working chaps like you and me?" That was distorting the working class appeal. Others found in nationalisation the salvation of everything.
I still stick to the idea that we are all of equal and infinite importance. Is there any chance in the foreseeable future of the Labour Party winning an election on that issue and with that doctrine? I do not agree that the Labour Party can never win an election. It could win an election but it could only do so by seriously diminishing the doctrine which is its essential raison d'être. I believe that I have quoted before the poet Crosland, who had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Anthony Crosland. The poet said, "I have trod the road to hell. There are things that I might have sold, and did not sell". If the Labour Party were to win an election there would be a great danger to its soul. That is my point of view.
One might ask what bearing that has on PR. As regards who would benefit from it, palpably it would be the Liberal Democratic Party, which would become much stronger. The Conservative and the Labour Parties would lose something. Therefore, the chance of any party winning a clear majority would be much diminished. We have to look at that scenario from the point of view of the Labour Party, although everyone can look at it from his or her own point of view. I believe very strongly that the Labour Party would have more chance of retaining its essential doctrine if it remained as it is now, and not in power. I hope that in time to come it will be the largest party. It may have a minority party to assist it—I must not call it a junior partner.
That is the situation in Ireland today although PR has worked very well in that country. I believe that the Labour Party will retain its essential message more clearly if it remains as it is; namely, dedicated to the principles which I have mentioned rather than striving desperately to win on its own at all costs. That is my attitude. It is a fine calculation. I believe that, in the interests of the Labour Party and also in the interests of social morality, PR should be adopted in this country.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this debate and, with others, thank him for the extraordinarily lucid and cogent introduction which he offered us. I do not propose to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his rather theological discussion of the precise benefits which various electoral systems might or might not bring to the Labour Party. It would be intrusive for me to enter into that particular controversy, although I am delighted with the conclusion to which it led him as it is one with which I wholly agree. Nor do I propose to take on board all the arguments deployed by the noble

909
Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I believe that that will be done by my noble colleague Lord Tordoff later on.
However, one of the most strange arguments I have ever heard for the first-past-the-post system is the handling of the British economy which the noble Lord seemed to think was proof that all was well with our electoral system. Nor did I feel that the argument that it works was a very good one since what is palpably the case today is that under the present Government the system does not work.
I wish to concentrate on a rather narrower point and in that follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Almost three years ago I introduced a Bill in your Lordships' House for introducing electoral reform in the election of members to the European Parliament. That Bill was passed by this House and received overwhelming Cross-Bench support. The Bill was designed to bring this country's electoral system into line with that of all other members of the Community and to bring it into accord with Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome which reads:
"The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member states".
So far the European Parliament has not done that. The liberal democratic parties of the Community have brought a case before the European Court of Justice against the European Parliament for dereliction of its duty. That came before the European Court of Justice yesterday and it has not yet given a ruling on the case.
However, that injunction in the Treaty of Rome has now been reinforced, while we await the ruling of the European Court of Justice, by the De Gucht Report which was presented to the Institutional Committee of the European Parliament in November last year. It was adopted by 18 votes to two. It insisted on the introduction of PR for the next European Parliament. It is important to note once more the consequences in this country and in the European Community of the way in which our system works. As people will remember, at the last election the Conservative vote in the European election dropped by 5 per cent. and the number of seats dropped by 29 per cent. That is not a very sensible way of running a shop—that is to say, that a 5 per cent. loss in votes leads to a 29 per cent. loss in seats.
As a consequence, there is no Conservative MEP in Scotland or Wales, and if one draws a line between London and Bristol there is no Labour MEP south of that line if one excludes London and Bristol. There is no member of the Liberal Democratic Party in the European Parliament at all. That has had consequences not only in this country but also in the European Parliament. It has led to the socialist group being the largest single party and to the communists being the third largest party which it would not have been if the British Liberal Democrats had been represented proportionately.
Therefore, it is not a question to which we can plead that our electoral system is purely a matter for us; it is a matter which affects other people. For that reason the Community has a very real interest in pressing us to conform with a proportional system in accordance with the recommendations of the De Gucht Report.
910
The problem came before the European Parliament on Monday. It is to be deeply regretted that it postponed a decision on that report until the summer. That means that any change cannot be made in time for the 1994 election. That postponement was due, I regret to say, to the lobbying of the Labour Party which still cannot make up its mind on the central issue. The Labour Party also persuaded its colleagues that it was better to take no decision rather than to take a decision which we hope very much will emerge from the lengthy consideration being given to this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I must confess that I look forward with the greatest interest to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has to say, in what way his mind is moving on the matter after his long and no doubt systematic consideration, and what kind of advice he is thinking of offering to his colleagues so that this business may be brought to a conclusion.
This is a matter where even the most cautious of your Lordships may feel able to take an experimental step (if you feel it is too early to plunge the whole way) by changing our electoral system, as I and my colleagues would advocate, and by moving to a proportional system in the election of MEPs. That is something that we shall be forced to do, something which I think we should do and something which I am sure would be of benefit to the European Parliament.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I have so far listened to seven very distinguished speeches and I admired the balanced introduction of the debate by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I enjoyed the robust expression of view by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was not wholly surprised by it. However, I was most intrigued by the sympathetic approach shown by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, particularly when I remembered the comparative lack of interest of the party opposite at the time of the Hansard Commission 17 years ago, although it is fair to say that Mr. Gwyn Morgan, with his close connections with the Labour Party, was one of the commission's members. I was another, as my noble friend said, under the benign and wise leadership of my noble friend Lord Blake. I remember wondering at the time about the source of his skill in mathematics. I now know.
The commission, as your Lordships will know, strongly recommended some form of proportional representation. I am not going to rehearse the arguments because my noble friend spent some time on them. However, we agreed generally that it was contrary to the spirit of a reasonably sophisticated democracy that a large number of the votes cast at any election should be without any value at all. I cannot say that the commission's recommendations were greeted with a wild burst of unbridled enthusiasm: they were not. There was the additional member system, which the majority recommended, and the STV method, suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
My noble friend has already talked about the various alternatives that were produced or might have been produced, but in fact the opponents of both the

911
single transferable vote and of the additional member system united in claiming, as they were justified in doing—as I am sure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would entirely agree—that the first-past-the-post system, although not demonstrably fair to put it mildly, at least had the merits of simplicity, clarity and comprehensibility. People knew where they were, as I think my noble friend said. They argued that the additional member system in particular would destroy, or at least undermine, the close relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. It would put unwelcome power in the hands of the political parties, who would become collectively responsible for completing the list of additional members. Even more seriously, it would or might often leave doubt, as my noble friend mentioned, after an election for days or even weeks, about the shape and composition and perhaps also the policy of the new government.
I can remember the tales, apparently designed to chill the commission's blood, which were told of the likelihood of protracted post-election discussions, held in rooms which were always, for some reason, apparently filled with smoke, leading eventually, as the electorate anxiously waited, to a bitterly fought and not always admirable compromise.
In spite of the commission's recommendations, the first-past-the-post system has already lasted for another 16 years. Under that system, at the last four general elections since it reported the Conservative Party has gained and maintained its ascendancy. I am sure that calculations of past election results under different electoral systems—that is, what would have happened under the additional member or the single transferable vote systems—are not only well beyond my intellectual capacity but are probably unrealistic anyhow.
I think the only safe conclusion which is almost, if not completely, platitudinous is that the adoption of any system of proportional representation would lead to a fundamental change for better or worse in our national affairs. But I would argue that platitudes are not always entirely to be despised and the very uncertainty of the consequences of change strikes fear into the hearts of party organisers. That fear is perfectly natural, perfectly reasonable and perfectly justifiable. However, if the fear is rooted, as I think it is, in the knowledge that under the proportional representation system the party of one's choice might have to summon allies in order to form a government, or even to watch other parties coalesce against it to do so, there still remains a field, which has been significantly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and, more recently, by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, where the introduction of proportional representation would achieve the object of fairness without introducing any of these unpalatable uncertainties.
The prospect of the European Parliament forming the basis of a centralised European government is, I believe and certainly fervently hope, exceedingly remote. Therefore in this field the arguments about uncertainties, coalitions, smoke-filled rooms, and so
912
on, have no force or relevance. In this context, the results of our present method of electing members of the European Parliament must arouse a little flush of shame in the mind of a democrat. Certainly it provides reasonable representation for my party and the party opposite, but not for the two smaller parties with about a quarter of the votes cast yet having not a single seat at Strasbourg.
I suspect that when my noble friend replies to this debate, he will in some ways follow the argument that others of my noble friends have made in the past. However, I beg for consideration of this strong plea that where members chosen in an election will have no part whatever in the formation of a government, we should try to move a little closer to the heart of the democratic principle which would allow—if I can use simple although unrealistic figures—20 million, 10 million, 5 million electors of all parties to choose representatives approximately in the proportion of 4:2:1. That would cease to deny the parties supported by a considerable fraction of the electorate any representation at all.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in this debate I start from the premise that all people are important. Democracy is the ability of people to control their own destinies. It is not the ability of one small group of people to control the destinies of a larger group of people. If I say that PR is good, it inevitably raises a question mark. I remind your Lordships of the debates we had several years ago, when I stood up from these Benches and declared that I was in opposition to terrorism but objected to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. One has to be careful about the words one uses. I would say that yes, I am in favour of proportional representation but I am not in favour of those systems which are called proportional representation and are put forward by minor parties for their own specific advantage. Here I am talking about the Liberals and the Communist Party, both of which have espoused PR because it was the only way they could achieve power over other people.
If I may make just a small digression, one thinks in terms of how the Liberals achieve representation and what they do with it. I think that it was David Alton, in his campaigns in Liverpool, who used to throw a dirty old mattress into someone's front garden and then bang on the door and say, "We'll get the council to shift it for you, dear". He would, indeed, get the council to shift it; but then he would get another dirty old mattress and throw that into the front garden next door. That, to my mind, is not the kind of—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I know that it is not usual practice to intervene in a timed debate; but I think that, in your Lordships' House, to cast such an aspersion on a Member of another place is unfortunate, to say the least.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am only repeating that which I read in the Observer a few years ago, which was not challenged by the Member of another place, so I can only assume that it was true and that

913
he was, in fact, proud of it. I happen to think that that is the kind of despicable political act of which no Englishman should be proud.
What do Liberals do when they get into any position of influence or power? There was an occasion shortly before Christmas when the Conservative Government—the Tories—were being challenged. There was a marvellous opportunity for the Liberal Party, the SDP or whatever they call themselves now, to join the anti-Tory alliance—something that they have been saying that they favoured for years—and to attack the Government. But what happened? They did not do so; they sided with the Tories. Those are just two examples of the problems that we face when dealing with the particular political systems that the Liberals, the SDP and the Communist Party seek to inflict upon us for their own advantage.
I said that I was in favour of proportional representation and I shall try to explain the ways in which I think that our current systems can be improved to become more proportional of the people who live in this country. First, we need to ensure that all constituencies are as near equal in size as possible. One only has to look at the electoral map of Britain to realise that there are some very large and some very small English constituencies, each of which sends one Member of Parliament to Westminster. We also have the anomaly of the electorate in Scotland sending, collectively, more members to Parliament than they actually need. So, there are inequalities and unfairnesses with the size of the electorate.
Secondly, we should ensure that every person in a constituency is counted and is allowed to vote. I shall give three examples of where people are not counted and not allowed to vote. The first is the mechanism of the compilation of the electoral register. It is compiled in October and it comes into force in February. It remains in force for the rest of the year, having been compiled the previous October. An election may be called at any point during a year and it has been judged that the register may be between 10 and 30 per cent. inaccurate. Therefore, in practice, between 10 and 30 per cent. of the electorate are disenfranchised either because they have moved out of the area or for some other reason. The second problem, which has become much more relevant during the past few years, is the underclass, the people who are not part of the system and who do not appear on the lists. That section of society has grown bigger over the past few years as a result of the poll tax. The residue of the horrors of the poll tax will stay with us for a number of years yet, I am afraid.
The third problem is that some people who live in a constituency are not permitted to vote because they are nationals of another country whereas other people are permitted to vote even though they do not live in the constituency. Recent changes in electoral law have permitted foreign nationals to vote in our elections, which seems anachronistic.
The third area in which we can improve matters is in the area of holding our representatives accountable. Here, we must recognise that one of the problems with the very existence of your Lordships' House is that we distract people from holding the House of Commons
914
accountable. We are somehow thought of as a backstop, a control, over the excesses of the elected Chamber.
My time has run out; but I should like to make a final point: whatever electoral system we have, it does not relate only to our national Parliament. We have local assemblies, national assemblies and international assemblies. I hope that we shall eventually have a world assembly. I hope also that the system that I propose, which is basically to improve our current system, will work at the local, national and international levels.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, when I saw in a newspaper —not, I hasten to add, the Observer, which is a curious source of information for anyone—that the Plant Commission had been appointed, I thought that it had something to do with the Rio Conference and was to be a commission to discover how we could preserve biodiversity. I was then taken aback to discover that I should have known that it was named after the then professor, now the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, and that its business was to examine proportional systems of election. However, there is a connection with biodiversity. Many of the plants that one was hoping to catalogue and preserve would have been very good for human beings (they might produce valuable medical or other products) whereas it can be said of all the electoral systems other than first-past-the-post that there is ample evidence that they are wholly deleterious to human beings.
That is not an argument about theory. It is something that we have established by practice. Various countries have been mentioned as having had various such systems. But what do we find if we look at the recent experience of any of them? Ireland has been mentioned. An Irish general election was held prematurely because the then Prime Minister was rude to the leader of his principal coalition partner. Ireland went to the polls and, as has been said, it took quite a time to work out the figures. However, when the figures were produced all the commentators said, "Well, at least the Irish people have been able to indicate their wishes. They want to get rid of Mr. Reynolds and the rule of the Fianna Fail Party." After seven weeks of negotiations, the Irish people find themselves landed with Mr. Reynolds with a larger majority than he had before. So much for the single transferable vote.
My noble friend Lord Blake is the great exponent of the additional member system—the German system —and will no doubt argue in favour of it. I do not think that it is altogether appreciated—or not often appreciated—that the three-party coalition which governs Germany (and has for some time) puts the Chancellor and his colleagues under considerable constraints. Not only must the Chancellor provide Cabinet posts for the two minor parties, but he must also allow them to decide who shall fill those posts. The Free Democrats, who have suffered in terms of personnel in various ways which we need not go into,

915
found it very difficult when the last reshuffle came along to find five more or less acceptable members for those Cabinet positions.
If Mr. Smith goes along with the Liberal Democrats and we have a coalition of that kind, then, looking along the Liberal Democrat Bench in the other place, I think that Mr. Ashdown might find it quite difficult to produce five suitable members for a Cabinet. Of course, distinguished members of the Liberal Democratic Party are Members of your Lordships' House—and most of them are speaking today—but it was certainly not the intention of those who advocated proportional representation either to make the changes which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy outlined, or to transfer much of the weight of government from the other place to your Lordships' House. That would upset the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, no end.
One could go on. I have often referred to the great tragedy of Israel. It has been and remains an obstacle to the peace process that under proportional representation all governments depend on small minority parties whose seats are guaranteed under the electoral system and which make up a parliamentary majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, spoke with great authority about Italy. However, it seems that in recent months and years, whatever may have been the justification for a measure to prevent the arrival of a Communist government, Italians have been extremely fed up with what they have. If one talks about electoral reform in Italy one means exactly the opposite of what is meant in this country; one means getting rid of proportional representation.
Other countries can be cited. In Belgium and Holland there are long intervals of time while ministries are formed and then uncertainties about their survival. In Denmark the presidency of the European Commission has been thrown into doubt by the operations of a parliament formed under a system of proportional representation.
I do not wish to be anti-European today and so I shall give something to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. On the whole I am in favour of PR for the European Parliament. It seems that in what is, after all, a vast boondoggle the spoils should be fairly shared among potential beneficiaries. It is of no political significance and therefore it does not affect what we think about the main issue.
Let us get down to what will, in fact, happen. The Labour Party is being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, to adopt proportional representation as part of its platform. As the party cannot make any change before the election it will adopt the policy only in the hope that it wins it enough Liberal votes in certain constituencies to give it a majority. It is the hope of the Liberal Democrat Party that, bolstered by those votes, the newly-elected Labour Government will then proceed to enact proportional representation. I shall let the Liberal Democrats into a secret; nothing of the kind will happen.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who changed places with me in the list. I had hoped that if I spoke later in the debate I should be clear in my mind about what I wanted. The answer is that my mind is no clearer and that I could have spoken earlier. Therefore, I shall speak no longer than I would have done in those circumstances.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because the issue will not go away despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others. We must face proportional representation in some form. The noble Lord nods his head in a negative sense—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, shakes not nods.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is an eloquent speaker. I know that because I heard him speak as President of the Union at Oxford. In this House we are able to reach a rational conclusion but unfortunately I cannot do so. It is as well that I admit that, which is probably the view of a number of other noble Lords.
The issue will not go away. The minority parties will not accept permanent disability. Nor is that acceptable to the Labour Party whose attitude hitherto has made electoral reform impossible. I hope that on other occasions we shall attempt to repeat the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I look forward to the publication of the report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, in the hope that he will make up my mind. After all, he is an important professor at Southampton University and I hope that his report will be conclusive. Until then I and many other noble Lords are inclined to share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If they do not and if they want a permanent Conservative Government, which is what he really prefers and believes can be achieved under the present first-past-the-post system, we are rather doomed. I support any step towards electoral reform taken along the lines expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his clear, well-balanced and interesting speech on such a complex issue. In the interests of true democracy surely the case for some form of proportional representation is unassailable. However, as other noble Lords have made clear, there is no perfect system and there are many practical difficulties.
I was first attracted to PR many years ago and for a few years I was a fairly active member on the National Committee for Electoral Reform. I was attracted for two reasons. The first was the tremendous damage that had been done to industry by the wild swings in policy between the two parties. One party carried through Acts of Parliament in one direction which affected industry. However, after a

917
change in government the next two years would be spent by the opposing party going in the opposite direction and changing the legislation.
I remember in particular the position of steel. It was nationalised, denationalised, renationalised and then again denationalised. How can one wonder why there was not sufficient investment in steel and not understand the troubles that it faced? The same applied to fiscal policy, defence procurement and many aspects of industrial life. Perhaps those factors are now less important because there is less difference between the two major parties; the party opposite has virtually given up any idea of more nationalisation. However, the issue remains important.
The second reason I was attracted to PR was that I had always been anxious that, with our unwritten Constitution under which Parliament is supreme, it would be possible for a government elected on a minority vote of, say, 40 per cent. of the votes cast, to carry through far-reaching changes. In my view that would be against the interests of the country. That could happen in the case of extreme Right-wing or Left-wing governments.
I believe that in principle the case for PR is unassailable. However, there are objections which have already been mentioned. It is said that PR would lead to coalition and to weak government. However, as my noble friend Lord Campbell made clear, all parties are to some extent a coalition, and compromise is not always bad. Strong governments based on substantial majorities in the other place are valuable when big changes are needed, as they were in 1945 and 1979. However, such strong governments can easily deteriorate into dogmatic governments, which is not in the interests of the country.
Between 1945 and 1950 there was a spate of extreme measures. If there had been restraint through some kind of coalition or the balance of a Liberal Democrat Party, we might have avoided the dogmatic nationalisation to which I have referred. Between 1985 and 1990 we experienced similar problems from a strong government which had a large majority in another place. If there had been balancing opinions which were able to exert influence, we should probably have avoided the disasters of the poll tax and the absurdities of the privatisation of water.
There has been considerable opposition to change from the two large parties. It seems that they fear that they will never have the opportunity to have effective power. But if hopes were dupes, fears may be liars. Many believe that proportional representation would give real hope of improved government. That is what we all seek.
There are agreements on many issues and objectives between the parties. Sound policies command support when they are cogently argued, as they must be when there is not an overriding strength in one party. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said—and very wisely said in my view—if we are to have PR, there must be big changes elsewhere in our outlook on how we govern ourselves. That will take a long time.
For those reasons he advocated—and I agree with him—that we need a measured and careful approach to any change in our electoral system, however good
918
PR may appear to be in theory. I agree with that, but I hope that the measured approach will not be so measured that it means that we shall make no progress at all. This subject has been in the air for a very long time. It needs further consideration. Perhaps a commission could look into the matter and put forward clearly all the pros and cons so that a better judgment could be made for the future.
Above all, I hope that we shall not reject PR for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter gave; namely, that the electorate are not clever enough to understand it. I really do not believe that that is true.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, it is extremely heartening to hear the widespread support in all parts of your Lordships' House for the need to review and reform the electoral system. The first-past-the-post system is defended on account of it having been there for a long time and having been effective and fair. Fair it is not and its effectiveness must be judged by the performance of this country in the past 50 years, because the governments that we have had are due to the electoral system that we have.
Just after the war we were the fourth largest industrial power in the world, and now we are somewhere near 25th. In Europe we have slipped below Italy and Spain and we are just above Portugal. Unemployment is rising and there is a whole generation of young people looking into a bleak future. Millions of householders are worried about whether they will still possess a roof over their heads. They fear repossession. The savings of people who have worked all their lives are jeopardised by a pound which has slipped from 12 marks to the pound in 1952 to 2.45 marks or 2.50 marks, and the pound is still not secure.
We are debating and wondering whether we are in a recession or in a decline. Is that a record that justifies the system? The electoral system is not the only reason for what has happened but it is a major reason. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, pointed out, governments have not enabled industry to perform and to see what its future may be. The system has produced short-termism in everything.
This country is in as mortal peril today economically as it was during the war when Churchill led us. Churchill felt that the national problems could not be solved on a one-party political basis because he needed support not only for the easy measures but also for the difficult measures, for his blood, sweat and tears. That is what we must look forward to in the future if we wish to avoid becoming a second-rate or third-rate nation.
We have been endowed with raw materials—oil and coal. We are the only country in Europe, apart from Norway, which has that. We have more than the Germans, and yet under proportional representation —although not only because of it—they have progressed from total ruin to where they are today.
The German ship of state has a keel with minority parties at the centre. That produces exactly the same result as does a heavy keel in any ship. It prevents the

919
lurches to which the noble Viscount referred so eloquently. For 10 years German politics have had a consistently firm financial and foreign policy, in spite of the fact that it was represented by Ministers of minority parties. Genscher was for 10 years Federal Germany's Foreign Minister despite the fact that his party represented only 5.7 per cent. of the national vote.
We do not need reminding in what peril we stand. It is not unlike 1933, 1934 and 1935 when all the bush fires were going up. Dictatorships have failed and it took 70 years to realise that. However, democracy as we practise it is also on trial. While we have governments which make extravagant promises in their manifestos which cannot be fulfilled, we shall not be able to correct or deal with the problems which arise.
Recently in America we have seen a new era: Clinton and Bush conducting a policy and supporting each other. I know that it will take a long time to review electoral reform but in the meantime, we need a truce where not only defence and foreign policies but also the economy must be taken out of the political playing field. We must stop those policies being used as a football.
On 5th December 1991 this House debated the same issue. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked the Government whether they could now see the need for reform. The Minister of State, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on behalf of the Government gave a terse reply. He said, "No, my Lords". I hope that this time he will not give the same reply.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, along with many noble Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this debate. He did that with admirable clarity and expounded the issues in a way which shows how good he was at instructing me in gunnery in 1940 at Larkhill. Indeed, he even instructed me in mathematics, which is not a subject of which I am naturally fond.
I was, as has been said, chairman of the Hansard Commission on electoral reform on which two noble Lords served with enormous success. They gave us great help. I am also president of the Electoral Reform Society, but I shall not presume on the strength of those qualifications, if they are such, to speak on this occasion at any length. Most of the arguments have been rehearsed during the course of our debate and it is superfluous to repeat them.
I merely wish to make three points. My first point is important and it is that the case for proportional representation depends very largely on what kind of proportional representation one adopts. There are many different kinds and one of the vital features of a system which might work is to have what is called in the jargon "a threshold"; that is to say, to have a system whereby, if a party obtains fewer than a certain proportion of the electors, it does not obtain any seats at all. That is what happens under the German system
920
with its 5 per cent. threshold. There is under the system of single transferable vote in Ireland a de facto threshold of somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent. I shall not explain the arithmetic of that as it would be tedious to do so at this juncture. Noble Lords can take it from me that that is the case.
The two systems which achieve a threshold and are viable are the German system; that is, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote. The Hansard Commission came down in favour of a modified version of the German system, the AMS, but was evenly divided on the merits of that and of the single transferable vote, which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, favoured.
I believe those are the only two possible serious runners for proportional representation. I consider the various other systems to have such defects that they should not be adopted. I believe, for example, there is no case for a system such as the Italian or the Israeli one. They were naturally prayed in aid, as always, by my noble friend Lord Beloff. He is quite right to say they work badly but the point is they have no threshold at all and give ample scope for minute splinter parties to control the fate of governments. The other systems do not do that. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may say, the German system has worked very well. One might say that Germany has flourished a great deal more in one way or another than Britain has under our system.
The second point is that proportional representation is often said to be too complicated. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made that point. He said that the electorate would not understand the system. I do not believe that is the case. I think my noble friend underestimates the intelligence of the electorate. Does he really think the British electorate is notably more stupid than the Irish electorate or the German electorate? That may be the case but I do not like to think so and I do not believe it.
The point about systems of PR is not that they are complicated for the voter. In the case of STV one merely puts 1, 2, 3 or 4, or whatever the case may be, against the names, and in the case of the additional member system that can be carried out under our recommendations with just a single vote, or in the German case with two. The system is not complicated for the voter. I accept that it is more complicated for the returning officers but that need not affect the voter. Therefore it is not valid to argue that the systems are complicated.
Thirdly, I think the case for PR in national elections is a strong one. I shall not go into the arguments for that. I believe the case for PR as regards a European Parliament is very strong and indeed almost overwhelming. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who made that point forcefully. I believe my next point has not yet been made. PR in local government would be an enormous asset. It would prevent tyrannical single party groups controlling various cities and counties for years on end. For that reason alone, some system of PR would be invaluable in local government. That is the end of what I wish to say.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we, too, are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate. In many ways it is a pity that we do not have more time to speak to enable us to debate in more detail the various systems which are available and the merits and demerits of those systems. That would be a useful teach-in for Members of your Lordships' House.
Many of the merits and demerits of the various systems have already been mentioned. I shall touch again on one or two of them. We in this party are undoubtedly firm supporters of the single transferable vote. As we have heard, my noble friend Lady Seear stood out for that measure in the Hansard Commission. I do not wish to give a long eulogy on STV nor do I wish to suggest we would not consider other systems in certain circumstances as it would be foolish to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has said, there are many merits in the German AMS method. My problem with that is the one I have with any list system whether it be national, regional or AMS, in that it leaves too much power in the hands of the political party. The great virtue of STV is that it puts the power to select the candidate in the hands of the elector which is where it should be.
The matter of single Member seats has been mentioned several times. Single Member seats are well recognised in this country. Members of Parliament in another place seek to represent all their constituents, but in the days when I had a vote there were times when I would not have gone to my sitting Member of Parliament with any issue that I wanted to discuss simply because my political views and his political views were so widely divergent that there would have been no meeting of minds. What I would have liked is to have been in a multi-Member constituency where I had a choice of perhaps four or five Members of Parliament to consult and where I could have found someone who was much more to my political taste. That would be the case in a multi-Member constituency.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, have dealt admirably with the effect of the present system on industry and the economy. I thought the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was panglossian. I do not think I am going too far in saying that. He talked about everything being for the best and the best of all possible worlds. There are many of us who would dissent from that view.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him just for a moment. I did not say that everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I said this was a system which had considerable practical merits. However, that is quite a different thing and the noble Lord has no right to misrepresent me.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord but that is what it
922
sounded like to me and from the look on the faces of other noble Lords in this House I believe some of them would agree with me.
The present system has not produced the best possible government over the past 40 or 50 years. I am reminded of a remark by Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said to my right honourable friend Sir David Steel that after the war the British were generous to Germany as they gave Germany three things: industrial trade unions, a federal system of government and a proportional electoral system. He said those were the three things on which Germany had built its strength since the war. He went on to say that the British had been so generous they kept none of those things for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in a customary knockabout performance this afternoon, has dealt with Italy and Israel. However, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has already explained the problem in those countries is the fact that there is either a low threshold or no threshold at all and therefore the splinter parties which can be at the extreme ends of the political spectrum get a much bigger say than they would do under AMS or STV.
There seems to be a general agreement that the elections to the European Parliament should be at the top of the agenda. I am glad to hear that said on all sides of the House. It is quite clear that there is a democratic deficit in Europe. That can only be put right by strengthening the power of the European Parliament. The European Parliament can only be strengthened if it is seen as being truly democratic and representing the whole of Europe. The distortions to which my noble friend referred in the electoral system in this country are distorting the balance of the European Parliament to a serious extent. I do not believe that Europe will allow us to continue to do that for very much longer.
On that subject, an opportunity presents itself immediately for the Government to make at least a modest experiment. We know that as a result of the Edinburgh Summit there will now be an extra six seats for Great Britain in the European Parliament. I am depressed and upset by the reply that was given on 14th January in another place by Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Minister of State at the Home Office, who said:
"We are urgently considering how to take forward the question of adding six additional seats for the next European elections in 1994. We intend to keep the existing voting system but to have the existing Euro-constituency boundaries independently re-drawn".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/93; col. 1046.]
There is very little time to do that. Are we to suppose that all the European constituencies will be redrawn? In that case, when will we know the results? People will want to know what their constituency boundaries are in good time to fight those elections and will certainly want that information before the back end of next year. If the Government suppose that they can put that measure through in that kind of timescale, they are sadly mistaken. Here is an opportunity to inject a system of additional member seats into the existing system as an experiment. I commend that proposal to the Government.

923
I have just come back from Kenya where I was a member of the team of Commonwealth observers who tried to define whether the elections in that country were free and fair. I hope that our report will be published within a few days and I hope to have the opportunity to bring it before your Lordships for discussion at a later date. I find it somewhat ironic to have to go to a country such as Kenya to pronounce on whether its elections are free and fair when it is quite clear that the elections in this country while they may be free are certainly not fair.
I also believe that in Kenya proportional representation might have helped. It might well have overcome the tribal problems which were reflected in the way in which the results emerged at the end of the day. We introduced PR for the European elections in Northern Ireland to overcome tribal problems, and that is a suggestion which we might hand on to the rest of the Commonwealth.
At the end of the day there would be many changes as a result of introducing PR, but there have to be changes. We have to move away from the adversarial, confrontational politics that we have had in this country if we are to have a democratic process which is at all creative. The way to do that is to introduce a proportional system of representation. That will not lead to soggy compromise. As my noble friend Lady Seear said, compromise is what one's opponents call it; common sense is what one calls it when one is in favour of it.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. We look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I do not suppose that he will unveil his magnum opus, but I hope that he will give some hint of the direction in which his working party is moving.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for facilitating the debate today. There can be nothing more important in a democracy than the way in which representatives are elected, and it is right that we keep our electoral system under review.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, I am the author of something that has come to be called the Plant Report. I am sorry that he thought that it might be a botanical catalogue. I have realised since I entered politics that I have a rather unfortunate name. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am rather pleased that my university's botany department has just closed down its plant improvement unit!
Speaking as chair of the Labour Party's working party on electoral systems, I wish that the debate was to take place in a few week's time. My working party is due to report to the National Executive of the party in April and, while I suspect that most members of the working party have made up their minds, as I certainly have, we do not formally finalise our recommendations until March. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to give a collective view on behalf of the working party or my own personal point of view, or indeed that of the Labour Party which will
924
have to respond to the working party's recommendations when they are made to the National Executive in April. What I shall try to do in the very short time allotted to me is to say something about the framework within which the decisions of the working party have been developed and its recommendations will be made.
It is important for all sides in the electoral reform debate to recognise, as has been said by noble Lords, that there is no ideal system of election. That can be shown mathematically, if that is to your taste, via Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem. More importantly, it can be shown in practical ways by suggesting that when we come to judge the electoral systems we usually have in mind quite a wide range of criteria which we use in arriving at a judgment about the merits or demerits of a particular system. The criteria we use in that judgment cannot be developed in a uniquely satisfying way and the criteria themselves are subject to dispute and interpretation.
In our first interim report we argued that the criteria of assessment in terms of which electoral systems are judged could broadly be divided into procedural criteria and those concerned with outcomes. For example, procedural criteria will be concerned with issues such as fairness, wasted votes —a concept which I do not believe can be given any clear meaning—the channels of accountability between representative and electorate, the degree of political participation which an electoral system encourages, and the degree of proportionality—because no one argues that proportionality has no role to play at all—together with a view about the extent to which the election of a government should be in the hands of the electorate and the extent to which it should emerge out of political negotiation within a proportionally elected parliament.
Those are the procedural criteria. Outcome criteria will concern such matters as the stability and effectiveness of government and the impact of electoral systems and the governments they produce on such matters as economic management and the degree of continuity of policy. Those are points which have already been made by noble Lords.
It is clear that there is no unique way of ranking those criteria in order of priority and thus no settled way in which electoral systems can be judged, and thus no ideal system. They all vary according to the view one takes about the importance and ranking of those criteria. Furthermore, as I have said, the criteria can be variously interpreted. Take for example, the notion of fairness. An electoral system cannot just be fair; it has to be fair to something or to someone—for example, to the voters, to parties, to regions or to under-represented groups. Different choices about what one is to be fair to will lead one to evaluate electoral systems in different ways. Therefore, for example, it might be argued that STV is fairer to voters than list systems whereas under-represented groups such as women and ethnic groups might do better under list systems. Similarly, list systems might be fairer to parties while a mixed member or additional member system might be fairer to regions as well as to women and ethnic minorities.

925
Therefore, in judging electoral systems one has to cope with that type of complexity and make judgments about it. In our working party we are not dealing merely with proposals for the House of Commons: at the NEC's request we are dealing with an electoral system for an elected second chamber, the European Parliament, regional assemblies in England and Wales, a Scottish Parliament and local government, as well as bringing forward proposals for changes in electoral law and electoral practices. So we have a complex task. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will accept that that complexity has accounted for the length of time we have taken over it.
In addition, the electoral systems—both majoritarian and proportional—imply different things for the role of parties and constituencies and for the nature of representation. Proportional systems tend to favour a microcosmic view of representation in which a parliament should be seen as a microcosm of the political forces at work in society as a whole. Majoritarian systems tend to adopt what is sometimes called the principal/agent view of representation in which a representative is elected to speak on behalf of a whole constituency once he or she—and of course it is generally he—is elected.
Therefore a change of electoral system is not just a technical change, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly said, but involves assessing some of the deepest components of what constitutes a democratic society. I wish that that factor were more appreciated by those keen on proportional representation. Many supporters who have written to me treat the issue of elections as though it were a purely mathematical exercise. Indeed, returning to the exact wording of the Motion before us today, which by convention calls for papers, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that if he wants papers, I have filing cabinets full of them. They have been sent to me over the past 18 months mainly by mathematicians who treat the issue of elections as a neat way of providing a mathematical solution. It is rather like fretwork in the late 1930s: it keeps people busy on dark winter evenings.
The electoral system should depend on function to some extent. Political bodies such as the House of Commons, an elected second Chamber, the European Parliament, or devolved assemblies, have different functions. There is no reason why they should be elected by the same method. Obviously there is a limit; but several countries have two electoral systems: one primarily for legislative bodies and another for deliberative and revising bodies.
It is also true to say that to put the choice as between first-past-the-post and proportional representation misdescribes the nature of the choice. There are other majoritarian systems besides first-past-the-post, such as the alternative vote or a second ballot. That needs to be taken into account.
In the working party we have come to the view that clear constituency accountability should be ensured. We are still committed to the idea of retaining some notion of community in the electoral system. We do not want an electoral system that undermines the already rather tenuous links that bind people together
926
in modern society. We also believe that every person elected to a legislative body should have stood before the electorate. In so far as we have developed an idea in relation to the additional member system as one of the alternatives that we wish to consider and make recommendations on in April, it is quite close to the Hansard Society proposal where every member would in fact have stood for election and would not be determined by party lists.
We are not too keen on STV. That is not one of the systems for the House of Commons that we now have under consideration. We believe that it dilutes constituency accountability and the idea of community too much, and replaces it by group accountability which can lead to clientism. We also believe that in a democracy people should not only know how to vote, as they undoubtedly do under STV, but that the citizen should also understand the relationship between the casting of the vote and how that affects the result. We believe that that is too complex within STV. We accept the view of Professor Michael Dummet in his review of the working party's interim report in the New Left Review of midsummer 1992 that the accounting system and the apportionment system under STV is chaotic.
We have rejected pure list systems because they diminish constituency accountability sometimes to vanishing point. Therefore our choices will be made between first-past-the-post, the alternative vote and a mixed member system under which all members stand for election. That system was chosen recently in the referendum in New Zealand as the preferred alternative to the first-past-the-post system. Those proposals will be made in a report to the Labour Party in April. I hope that noble Lords will be interested in the proposals that will be made in that report.
5.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it is always an alarming prospect to follow one so knowledgeable on these matters as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who, as well as being a professor, is engaged in deep study of electoral reforms for the party opposite. He stated that he has an unfortunate name in the political world. That may be so. I can only say that he is a much coveted intellectual.
Debates in your Lordships' House on proportional representation are always interesting. They are full of knowledge, depth and great sincerity. It is not surprising that there is not necessarily unanimity of view but the debates are always of great interest, as has been the discussion today. Such debates are also complicated. They take one down such routes as the likelihood and effect of hung parliaments, coalitions and mathematical formulae, transfer votes and so on. I have listened with interest and the Government will take note of what your Lordships said. I do not propose to answer each noble Lord's points, because that would be too complicated, might be somewhat adversarial and might take too long. However, I propose to give the Government's views on what is a complex and sensitive issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that he had not been able to make up his mind when he spoke. I

927
hope that I shall be able to encourage him to make up his mind. I was encouraged that one of such political experience found it difficult. That gives me great comfort because I find it difficult every single day to make up my mind on any subject. To find that the noble Lord has had such a difficulty even once gives me great encouragement.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing the debate today. I have no doubt that those noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches were particularly glad when they read the Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, did not miss the opportunity to try to woo the Labour Party about proportional representation. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, "He would, wouldn't he?" because it would benefit the Liberal Party to have proportional representation. All I say to the Labour Party—it is not a political point—is, "Watch out for Little Red Riding Hood, in particular when she says that she has come down from a rundown Ruritania".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we have to start from the basic fact that no system is perfect. Were there a perfect system, there would be no cause for a debate like this, nor indeed for any other system. Democracy means the rule of the people. It is a fine theory, but it is very difficult to find a system which puts it irrevocably into practice. Every system has its advantage and every system has its disadvantage.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the unique advantage of the first past the post system which we use in the United Kingdom is that it is simple. It is familiar. Everyone understands it. The person who gains more votes wins, and that is that. There is a great deal to be said for that. The member represents directly the interests of his electorate—both those who have voted for him and those who have not.
One other great advantage of the system is that it is much more likely to produce an overall majority for one party and thereby to provide stronger and more stable government, whether that is at local or national level. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, did not find that factor particularly attractive. He said that he wanted good government and implied that he had not had it. That is a personal opinion. We all want good government. One does not achieve that by choosing weak or unstable government. The question that is asked of the voter under the first past the post system is simple. It is, "Who do you want to represent you on the council or parliament?" The candidate who gains more votes—even one more—wins. The question and answer are simple. They are both clear.
There have been many speeches in favour of proportional representation. My noble friend Lord Caldecote said that the case is unassailable. I question that. Proportional representation is not a system of election. It is a type of election. There are many different varieties of it. People sometimes talk of proportional representation as though it were an alternative to the first past the post system. However, it is not, because it is not a single system. There are many different varieties. There is the single
928
transferable vote system; the party list system; the additional member system and the alternative vote system. Within those systems there are many different methods of application. All are different. All produce different results. There is no uniformity either in practice or in result in proportional representation. People often think that proportional representation is fairer. I venture to suggest that it is not. As each system of proportional representation will produce a different result, each system will differ in its degree of fairness or unfairness as against the first past the post system or any other type of proportional representation.
I did not go along with my noble friends Lord Caldecote and Lord Blake, but I agreed with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that many of the systems were completely incomprehensible to the ordinary person. I am bound to say that in that happy bracket I include myself.
Of course people know how to cast a vote. What they do not necessarily appreciate is how the machine will throw out the results. Many of the systems result not just in the counting of votes but in the subsequent re-allocation of the votes cast according to some complicated formula.
Because systems of proportional representation rarely give a single party an overall majority, they often result in some form of coalition government, as has been said. Coalitions, by their nature, have to compromise. As a result, governments can be formed on the basis of a programme of which the electorate has not even had the opportunity to approve or disapprove. The programme emerges as a result of horse-trading behind closed doors between the different parties.
In an election, therefore, voters can only guess what kind of coalition their party might have to enter into after the election and what new policies it might have to adopt and what compromises it might have to make in order to keep the coalition in existence.
We need look no further than the Republic of Ireland, which has been mentioned today, where it has taken seven weeks to put together a coalition government, to see the difficulties which can be caused. Or consider Italy, which has had 50 governments in 45 years since the Italian republic was established in 1948. I can only say: heaven keep us from such a fate. Oddly enough, that is exactly what the Italians are now saying. They realise that they must change their system to something better.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Earl take an interruption?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have already done so.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps he will take another. Is he aware that proportional representation has been a great success in Ireland and that no one there would dream of changing it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Ireland is a special case for special reasons. I could deal with it, but I do not think I shall do so. There are various reasons why that has applied there, not least because of the religious divisions which prevail in Ireland. I should prefer not

929
to take any more interruptions. I took one but, in order to keep within the timescale, I should prefer not to pursue them.
Very often—as has happened in Italy and, indeed, in Germany—parties which poll few votes can exercise on government an influence which is quite out of proportion to the number of people who voted for them. They can keep on exercising this influence despite the fact that they regularly come low in the polls.
These, as I see it, are pretty fundamental objections to proportional representation. There is also the practical difficulty, were we seriously to consider such a change, of finding a system which would suit the United Kingdom. Proportional representation comes, as I have suggested, in many guises, none of which the Government regard as a satisfactory replacement for our present system.
That is why the Government's position on proportional representation has always been, I think, well known. We have always made it clear that we have no plans to introduce any form of proportional representation for local government elections in Great Britain, nor for elections in the United Kingdom to another place. That remains the case today. I hope that at least I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, by giving him more than a monosyllabic answer to a similar question which I was asked at Question Time, even if the result is the same. We are always happy to listen, I have listened, and the Government will take heed of what your Lordships have said.
Your Lordships have sometimes said that we are the only country in the European Community which does not have proportional representation—and I remember the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, saying that to me at Question Time—as if we were the odd man out. But there is no conformity or uniformity among our European partners. There is a whole host of different systems. Spain and Portugal use a list system which does not allow the voter to express a preference between candidates, but only between parties. The list system does away with constituency representation, which is one of the main strengths of our arrangements.
Belgium also uses a list system, but a different variety. The elector either votes for a party's list or for one candidate from a list, so that he can show that he supports that party but that he prefers his chosen candidate to others on the list. In Italy, the vote can indicate a preference for three or four candidates. In France, one of the systems used—and they keep changing them—provides that, if there is no outright winner, the election is re-run a week later with the candidates with the fewest votes eliminated.
Then there is that curious hybrid system, the additional member system. Germany uses it, as my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Blake reminded us. The effect of that system is to create two classes of member of parliament. Some members are elected by constituencies, as we do now, but others are drawn from among the defeated candidates—the ones who have not won—in order to bring the total into line with national voting patterns. As a result, some
930
candidates who had actually been rejected by the electorate would be returned as members. That seems a funny system.
The alternative vote system is another version, but it is not used in Europe or, so far as I know, anywhere else in the world. It does not achieve the aims of proportional representation because there is little relationship between the votes which have been cast and the number of seats which are obtained. The system is much more complicated than ours and it offers no advantages.
Then there is the single transferable vote system, which is used in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland for elections other than for Westminster. This requires the formation of large multi-member constituencies, but it distances the member markedly from his or her constituents. It relies upon quotas and the redistribution of votes which are surplus to the required quota, together with the redistribution of votes for the eliminated candidates. The General Synod of the Church of England uses that system too, I believe.
There are many other variations upon those systems, but they all have the same serious drawback. It is that too much control is vested in the hands of the central party organisation which draws up the list. I always think that the best example of the disadvantages of proportional representation, or at least one version of it, is the experience in Sweden. There was an election in 1973 and a system of proportional representation was used. The result was that 175 members were returned from the right of the political spectrum. These were what I would call Conservatives and others. The same number of members were returned from the left of the political spectrum, from among the Social Democrats and the Communists. If anyone were absent for a vote in Parliament he could be replaced by an alternative. There was no provision for by-elections. The parliament ran for three years and the result was that, whenever there was a vote, there was always a tie. The speaker had to give the casting vote on each occasion and he had a black velvet bag by his side in which were two balls. One was black and one was white. He used to put his hand in the bag and pick out the appropriate ball. Accordingly, that was how the country was governed for three years.
Oddly enough, it is interesting that in the United Kingdom the system which we have allows a recently-formed political party to disintegrate because it achieves insufficient support from the electorate. Yet all its leaders end up in Parliament, in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the party, Parliament and your Lordships' House are all the richer for that.
Some of your Lordships may say that these arguments against proportional representation apply with less force or do not apply at all in the context of elections to the European Parliament. That was my noble friend Lord Beloff's view, not because proportional representation was better but for the rather extraordinary reason, it seemed to me, that the European Parliament was, as he described it, a "boondoggle"—whatever that is—and that PR would

931
not make any difference. That was certainly one form of logic—though not the usual kind—from my noble friend.
The European Parliament, of course, does not support a government in power and its functions and powers are different from those of a national parliament. The role of its members is also different. A member of the European Parliament, therefore, does not and cannot represent his or her constituents in quite the same way as his or her counterpart does at Westminster. The link is inevitably more tenuous.
Any system of proportional representation which might be adopted for the United Kingdom for election to the European Parliament would involve substantially larger constituencies and I think this would destroy any notion of local representation.
It would also make it much more difficult for a member of the European Parliament to identify himself or herself with his or her constituency—of which he or she would be but one representative—or to retain links with his or her constituents. Of course, that would apply vice versa. A change in the electoral arrangements for the European Parliament would tend to make the member of the European Parliament an even more remote and faceless individual by destroying the direct one-to-one relationship between a member of the European Parliament and the recognisable geographical area which he or she represents.
The European Parliament has, for some time, been pressing for the introduction of a uniform electoral procedure throughout the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, reminded us of that today. He told us that the Treaty of Rome requires the European Parliament to draw up proposals for such a procedure. That is perfectly true. It also requires the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, to recommend to the member states an appropriate procedure for adoption. He said that the United Kingdom had blocked that process. I do not think that is quite so. No agreement has yet been reached on a proposal to be put to the Council of Ministers. Only at that stage would any blocking mechanism come into play.
So far, the proposals have been for a list system of proportional representation with multi-member constituencies. Those would require changes to the procedures of all the member states and they raise substantial difficulties for several of them.
The fact is that, in a simple but quite understandable way, each member of the Community agrees that there should be a common system. They are all agreed on that. But curiously enough each country considers that the system should be the one which that particular country uses. So, there is a not inconsiderable impasse here. The difficulties could not be overcome in time for the 1984 elections, and since then there has been no real progress towards the introduction of a uniform electoral procedure. The procedures for elections to the European Parliament vary widely between the member states. All, except the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, use list systems of proportional representation.
932
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is concerned about how the European parliamentary constituency boundaries will be drawn to accommodate the extra six seats. Consideration is being given at present to how to accommodate these additional seats in good time for the 1994 European parliamentary elections. We are not proposing a different system for the six extra seats.
The systems used in Europe are of many different kinds. No two are identical. Some involve regional multi-member constituencies; others use national lists. Some allocate seats proportionately within regions; others do so at national level. Some allow the voter to choose between different candidates of the same party; others only allow the voter to choose the party. And so it goes on. There is no uniformity, nor even a vestige of conformity, within the European Community at present. And we do not yet know what fresh proposals will ultimately emerge from the European Parliament. The Government will, however, consider on their merits any recommendations from the Council of Ministers for a uniform procedure. Until then, we have a system which is familiar to us and one which we believe suits us best.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the short time remaining, I should like to thank all the speakers who have taken part. They are distinguished speakers who from their past experience or interest have been able to contribute to the debate, which, as I indicated at the beginning, was a Motion attempting to go into the subject rather than one to take sides upon.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who, having been ambassador in Rome, pointed out that what was happening there was done very much in order to keep a communist government out. I have followed events since 1947, and 1948 was a very near thing; and the Communists nearly got in. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote with his background of knowledge about industry and business in this country; to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who expanded with clarity on the points in favour of the present system which I had been able only briefly to outline in my opening speech; and to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who drew attention to the point that the European Parliament—because it does not have to form a government or an executive—does not present the problems for change which the Westminster Parliament would have to face.
I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who is chairman of the Plant Committee and in a very significant and important position. He was able to give us a peep into the results of his work so far. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who clearly gave us the Government's present views on these matters.
A very simplified summary of my views is that the introduction of PR will be difficult until adversarial politics are modified. The question is put, usually by the Liberal Democrats: which comes first? Some will say and will argue that the introduction of PR should

933
be first, and that that would assist changes in adversarial attitudes. I do not go along with that view. I believe it would be taking a great risk, for the reasons which I and other people have indicated. There is a great deal of preparation to be done and information to be given to the public about the changes before one can implement PR. It cannot be done at very short notice or overnight.
I foresee, however, that PR will eventually come. I hope that the two developments (changes in adversarial attitudes and an advance towards some form of proportional representation) will proceed together, albeit gradually. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
5.35 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to call attention to the working of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the fact that at this moment my noble friend and colleague of us all, the late Lord Willis, would have been rising to move his Motion regarding the life, work and influence of Keir Hardie. Lord Willis died with tragic suddenness and we deeply grieve his death. It was a pleasure and a comfort to read what my noble friend Lord Graham wrote in the recent issue of The House Magazine.
I was intrigued with my late friend's Motion. I wondered what he was going to say about Keir Hardie; what Minister on the Benches opposite he would expect to take ministerial responsibility for the life and work of Keir Hardie; and which of my noble friends would have risen on this side of the House to deplore the rise and fall of socialism and declaim that they were still of the faith. Noble Lords are aware that it is the centenary of the foundation of the Independent Labour Party. That was no doubt the basis upon which my noble friend intended to raise the matter. It was a more pleasant subject than the one I must now discuss.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is in my experience the most outrageous law ever passed in Parliament. It is probably worse in some respects even than the suppressive tendencies of war-time legislation and the defence of the realm Act (regardless of national security).
It has now been in operation for about a year. I have to raise a question regarding the working of the Act so far. My conclusion on the working of the Act is that it is working within the structure of law and an ethos of administration which has all the characteristics of a police state. Indeed, we have planted inside our tolerant and democratic community an isolation of neo-fascist conditions which would have fitted comfortably in the works of any authoritarian state but which is alien to our own traditions and thoughts regarding the way to run a country.
There is growing anxiety about the Act. Many people, quite apart from those grievously affected by
934
it, are beginning to complain. I suppose the difficulty is that the British people, by culture and experience, tend to look to the law for justice. But there is no justice in the Dangerous Dogs Act. It was not introduced to provide justice. It was introduced to suppress. It was the next best thing to the wholesale execution of dogs known as pit bull terriers. That was the sequel to the brainstorm which the then Home Secretary went through when he proclaimed that mass slaughter was a remedy for the danger of pit bull terriers to public well-being. It took a few sober-minded bodies to tell him that it was not on. The Act was what followed the reversal of his outlook.
The Act came as near as possible to being a programme of extinction of a whole breed or identification in the canine world known as the pit bull terrier. Everything in the Act is designed to make it difficult for those dogs to survive or to make their care tolerable to those who desire to keep them under the Act's harsh conditions.
I am not being extreme in my language when I say that those are the conditions of a police state. We have them all. We have the informer. Plenty of information has been given. Some officials of estimable societies have given information away. Police raids take place and the police turn up in riot gear with all the equipment to subjugate a lion, and possessing warrants to enter and forcibly remove dogs. The dog is taken away and one is told that one will hear from the police or the court later. One can wait 14 months and still not hear a word. During all that time one is denied access to one's dog; one is not even told where it is. The anxiety of waiting day by day, week by week for a summons from the court to enable one to appear to defend the life of the dog is a misery beyond belief.
I cannot contain my emotions when I read the innumerable letters that I receive from all over the country every day. Some were handed in only this afternoon. All that is not because of what the dogs have done, but because of what they are. It is a form of ethnic cleansing. It is the breed that is important. What matters is what they are or what we think they may do; it is not what they do.
I want to sweep away the Act and start on something more sensible. A year ago we were told that there was an emergency. Will the emergency last indefinitely? When the matter was raised in the House of Commons on 4th November by Mr. Andrew Bowden, a Member in another place, the Government said that they were not proposing to do anything. I do not know what the Government will say this afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, knows what he is going to say before he has listened to a word of what I say. That is how business is done here. It does not matter what one says; it is all written down on a sheet of paper. One is told, "That is it; not a word more or less". That is how one is treated. That is Whitehall taking care of Ministers and keeping them straight.
I shall not try and argue for the abolition of the Act of Parliament. Indeed, in present circumstances it would not be politic to urge that legislation should be introduced to amend it. It would raise too many problems. But I shall try and help the House and the

935
Minister to think of something that can humanise this inhuman regime and make the Act more tolerable and less of an outrage without seriously impairing its purpose.
What are the evils of the Act? First, as I have already indicated, there is the length of time between one's dog being seized and proceedings being taken. The British Veterinary Association tabled an admirable paper of proposals for changing the regime of the Dangerous Dogs Act. It suggests that a system of allowing a dog to be released on bail should be introduced. We know that it would need to be applied under strict conditions of security. But we let murderers out on bail. Many rogues and vagabonds are allowed out on bail, and there are presumably conditions under which dogs that have shown no disposition towards violence or crime could be kept waiting for their fate.
That is one course. Certainly there should be access to the dogs for their owners; they should be told where they are. What is the point of secrecy? When I ask the Minister, he replies that it is a matter for the courts. Therefore the courts should be aware of what we think of the matter. Some people have had to go to court recently and they have never been in a magistrates' court before.
The next point that arises concerns the mandatory sentence. As your Lordships are aware, under Section 1 of the Act, when an owner is convicted of keeping an unregistered dog, apart from the monetary fines which can be imposed at the discretion of the magistrate, an order for destruction must be imposed. It is referred to as a mandatory sentence. The only other such sentence that will occur to the House is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. One can therefore equate dangerous dogs with those who are accused of murder. They are both subject to mandatory sentences.
When the order for destruction is issued it may be executed immediately. However, there is sometimes a deferment to give the owner an opportunity of considering whether to appeal. Under the purposes of the Act at the present time I do not believe that there is any need to keep the mandatory sentence. I understand that it is difficult to vary that section in the Act without changing the law. I suggest that magistrates' courts which feel that a mandatory sentence of death would be unjust, and that something less severe should be imposed, should be given the power to suspend their judgments or to adjourn the hearing to give the owner the option of a late registration. Late registration is now refused and is part of the punishment. If you have not already registered you must bear the consequences.
Surely the regulations for the making of exemptions, which the Minister can vary by way of a negative procedure statutory instrument, mean that he can provide the option for registration at the present time or at a future date to be at the discretion of the court. If the owner is willing to accept registration to keep his dog, he should be allowed to do so even though the monetary fine might in consequence be increased. Better to take it out of the owner's pocket
936
than take it out of the dog's life. The suggestion is that there should be either a suspended sentence or an adjournment. I believe that a magistrates' court can do that already. I wonder that magistrates have put up with it until now. I know of no case where the discretionary power to sentence an offender has been removed from a court that has jurisdiction. To deprive a court of discretion in sentencing when it has the right and duty to reach a verdict is a serious matter. That was what we did under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
I do not believe that at the moment we can do anything about the onus of proof that rests upon the offender; it will require a change in the Act. However, to humanise the mandatory sentence will be an enormous boon to a lot of people.
There is the troublesome question of identification. Various suggestions have been made. The BVA has a whole document about it which is of interest. The RSPCA has also made an effort. At present a great deal of advice is forthcoming. In terms of the scope of humanising the regime, short of fresh legislation there is room for consideration of this matter by the Government. If they decline to consider it, alternative steps will have to be taken. I sincerely hope that we shall get a response on this occasion and that the Government are prepared to consider this matter a year after the main purpose of the Act has been fulfilled, and that we are now on the downward slope. If we do not do something the emergency Act of 1991 could continue for another decade. There will still be registered dogs around 10 years from now; they could be in breach of the law 10 years hence. The Government do not think 10 years ahead; they do not think that anything a week after next is worth consideration. I think it is about time that they got the message.
The message to me is that I should resume my seat, although happily time is a little more flexible than usual in this debate. I am glad of the opportunity of a little extension.
This is a serious matter and in some respects a constitutional one. I do not understand why the lawyers did not burst into froth and protest at the time that the Dangerous Dogs Bill was going through Parliament—they could not have done it in the Commons but could have done it here—at the deprivation of the discretionary rights of a court in the treatment of an offender within its jurisdiction. I believe it was a great shame that that right was taken away. Magistrates whine and complain that they have no option; they feel ashamed at what they have to do. The police do not enjoy what they have to do. Everybody is unhappy. This is the unhappiest Act of Parliament that we have had for very many years. The Government should have the courage to realise that the Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Commons in four hours flat. This was not a considered Act of Parliament; it was an emergency measure created by the situations I have described. All emergency legislation is likely to be flawed. Nearly all legislation overkills the problem it has to deal with, and the time for reflection and flexibility has surely come. My Lords, beg to move for Papers.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffliam Prior: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for the opportunity to debate the functioning of the recently-passed Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. That Act followed and was stimulated by a number of horrendous attacks on members of the public, particularly children, by American pit bull terriers and other dogs. We are periodically reminded of this situation by the press. Even today there is a newspaper report about a pit bull terrier viciously attacking another dog. The intent of the legislation was obviously to protect the public from such attacks. A welcome corollary to that was that it might assist in the prevention of the awful sport of dog fighting or dog baiting. In the long run, it was a humane path to eliminate from Britain dogs of the pit bull terrier type by requiring that such dogs be registered, neutered, permanently identified, muzzled and kept on a leash in public. If any of those conditions was contravened the dog would be seized and destroyed and the owner prosecuted. Several months ago an example of that could be found in the newspapers. A dog had its muzzle removed for a minute or so, in order to quench its thirst and was immediately seized. That dog is now under threat of destruction for that misdemeanour.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has addressed in particular the question of what one may call the civil liberties aspect of the legislation. I cannot and do not even attempt to muster the adjectives and phrases that he has used to describe the legislation. I wish to address how it impinges on dogs in this country. At present the law allows little or no discretion, as to the fate of a dog that is accused of being "of a type known as a pit bull terrier". A major problem is the confusion as to what is a pit bull terrier type. There is no such recognised breed in Britain.
This difficulty was adumbrated at the Third Reading of the Dog Control and Welfare Bill several months ago. There is no clear breed standard for such dogs. As a result, dogs bearing a resemblance to the pit bull terrier, regardless of their ancestry, are at risk of being seized if they put a bark out of place, so to speak. There have been some quite horrendous and remarkable errors of judgment in the identification of dog types, where their pedigree has been beyond question and yet they have been regarded as a pit bull terrier type. As a result, some 250 or more cases of dogs under appeal on this basis are in kennels in the metropolitan area awaiting a decision.
The British Veterinary Association, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and in which I declare an interest as a member, has been much concerned about the functioning of the Act. It has produced several suggestions which I believe, along with the noble Lord, would greatly improve the functioning and avoid the hardship on the part of dogs and indeed their owners where there is doubt about the identity of the dog while maintaining the intent and thrust of the legislation. I am grateful to the British Veterinary Association for giving me sight of its recommendations which I understand are to be brought to the attention of the Home Secretary.
One aspect which the association emphasises is that
938
there must be a much clearer definition of the import of the word "type". Indeed it should mean dogs which can be clearly and indisputably identified as pit bull terriers or which are known to have a parent that is a pit bull terrier. Behavioural characteristics must also be taken into consideration. If there is any doubt, the dogs should not be found guilty merely on the appearance alone that they resemble a pit bull terrier, as indeed is now happening. It has been reported that one puppy of a litter was identified as a pit bull terrier type while the other six litter mates were not. Surely that kind of instance is quite unacceptable.
If this broad interpretation of the law is to continue, resulting in a variety of dogs being categorised as pit bull terrier types, then the BVA suggests—I agree with it and with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—that the index of exempt dogs which has now closed should be reopened to allow owners to comply with the requirements of the Act.
However, perhaps one of the more distressing aspects of the functioning of the Act is its impact on the welfare of individual dogs accused of being of the type known as pit bull terriers but which have not behaved dangerously and may have been seized by the police and been kept in kennels in isolation distinct from their owners for many months before being brought to trial. There are reports of this period extending from nine months even to beyond a year. This may cause serious temperamental changes in the dog. It is certainly inimical to the welfare of the animal and is particularly distressing and costly to the owner.
The following proposals have been made by the British Veterinary Association. Dogs seized by the police should be immediately identified by a microchip; they should then have a health inspection by a veterinary surgeon; and, as the noble Lord has indicated, the owners should be advised that they can apply for bail for their dog except in the cases of aggravated assault. This bail would operate in the same way as bail operates for humans. Failure to present the dog for trial would result in forfeiture of the bail and of course prosecution of the owner who was in charge of the animal.
Once bail had been granted the dog could be returned to its owner pending trial. It would thereby reduce distress for the dog and any change in character and performance since it would be in its home. It would obviate a number of welfare problems that occur with animals that are put in kennels on a long-term basis without access to their owners. The dog could be examined by a panel of experts to determine its provenance so to speak. This would greatly reduce the expense to the public purse, since the fees for accommodation in kennels are paid out of the public purse where legal aid occurs. It would also reduce the expense to the private citizen. Animals denied bail would be kept in kennels conforming to the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, but would be allowed periodic supervised visits by their owners. Finally, and as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has suggested, there should be a removal of the mandatory destruction section of the Dangerous Dogs Act. The BVA emphasises the need to give courts trying these cases discretion to decide

939
the appropriate punishment for an owner in non-aggravated cases. It would seem unrealistic that there is only one condition that can be applied in all cases.
I believe that these modifications to the 1991 Act would retain and achieve the objectives of protecting the public from dangerous dogs while allowing responsible dog owners to enjoy the company and the benefits of their animals.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I would have been more fulsome in my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for raising this subject if he had suggested any other way of ensuring that children and adults should not continue to be attacked by dangerous dogs.
How do I come to be mixed up with dangerous dogs? It is in a somewhat unusual way. In my own locality I was asked by the police to help them to ensure that police dog handlers, who in many cases are mixed up with these trials, could become expert witnesses. We took over the Croydon court, which is a magnificent place. We had 12 of these dog handlers in succession before us. In each case they had been given a dog to handle in one of these kennels and they were asked to provide for us, as magistrates, coloured photographs of the dogs. Two of the dogs in particular were vicious looking animals. They could not even get them out of the kennels. In the court there were two barristers, one to prosecute and one to defend. We also had expert witnesses to assess these dog handlers. I was impressed by this exercise and I am sure that it made sense.
I am the first to agree, as I believe everyone in the debate will, that the Act could be improved. I would disagree if anyone were to suggest that the police are responsible for any problem in this aspect. It is a difficult job. These dog handlers are almost by definition dog lovers. When the dogs are seized and taken to the kennels for contravening the Act they are seen by experts. They are examined by a vet, they are vaccinated, and if there is any doubt, outside experts are brought in to be consulted.
It will be remembered of course that when this Act was passed official guidance was given. That was issued by the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment. We shall return in a moment to the additional guidance which has been suggested. When this Bill was debated in another place the Secretary of State countered the argument about the dogs being family pets and perfectly safe. He quoted Dr. Roger Mugford, the respected animal psychologist, who said,
"all pit bulls go bad. It is just a countdown from when they are 12 months old".
He is also quoted as saying,
"there is very little we can do to stop that disastrous Mr. Hyde unfolding from this apparently Dr. Jekyll dog".
Recently in a summing-up His Honour Judge Zucker went on to make a valuable point. He said:
"We reject Dr. Mugford's approach which relies principally on the behaviour or characteristics of the dog. We regard his approach as an attempt to subvert the provisions
940
of Section 1(1a) of the Act which requires the court to have regard to the type, and by necessary implication, not to have regard to the behaviour of an individual dog".
That is the kind of point made when we are trying to instruct the dog handlers when they appear in court.
There are one or two points that have arisen in recent trials. I have already mentioned one. The other concerns His Honour Judge Zucker, when he said in summing up:
"In view of the concern felt about this case we can say that we also found that the dog fell within the very broad specification of the Staffordshire bull terrier type. But we found that the dog had sufficient characteristics to be of the type known as the pit bull terrier".
That was why the appeal was dismissed.
In order to bring us right up to date—and it has already been mentioned—there are the suggestions of the British Veterinary Association. It is interesting to note that the BVA starts off by speaking about reducing the unnecessary suffering of pet dogs and their owners. I like the word "pet". It also clarifies the situation for the police and the courts. There is not a word about attacks on human beings and their sufferings. It concentrates on the question of type, which is a very difficult argument and which I shall not go into. I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, in that connection.
It has been suggested that regional panels comprising three or five experts could be set up to help the police to identify dogs before deciding whether or not to charge the owners. Who are to be those experts? That is the question which the police are wondering about.
Then the British Veterinary Association comes to the additional Home Office guidance. It says that it is concerned for the welfare of dogs suspected of being of this type. They are kept in kennels for many months. That is very true. But I point out that that is often the case because the defence has asked for an adjournment, as a result of which the trial cannot begin. When the trial has been concluded and the dog found guilty, so to speak, together with the human being in charge of it, the parties then go to appeal and after that decisions are often come to in this House.
I have with me details of a case which backs up something that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned. On 30th November 1991 a dog owner was found guilty. The appeal was heard on 5th June 1992. The judicial review is still taking place at this moment, so we do not know the result. I believe that most people know that this is at tremendous expense. I understand that the cost of kennelling is between £7.50 and £9 a day, so that comes out at roughly £1,500 a year. Therefore, in this case the sum will be very substantial.
Choosing my words carefully, I add that it is not always the owner of the dog who wishes to prolong the proceedings. He is backed by professional people whose interests are quite naturally not averse to having another trial or an appeal so they can get the requisite fees. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, brought up again the point that owners should apply for bail. I am a cynic and so are my police friends. They say that any suggestion of failing to present the dog for trial means that the money would be forfeited and the owners charged. They would know almost certainly

941
that that dog would never be seen again. While it was out on bail it would be said that it had been run over, seized or lost. So that idea was dismissed altogether.
There is then the question of visiting the dog in the kennels. The whole point of the kennels being at a secret location is to prevent pet enthusiasts from raiding these places and releasing the dogs to the detriment of the country as a whole. That is nonsensical. However, perhaps I may now turn from that to the brief from the RSPCA which has been presented this week. I am much more happy about that. It says:
"Whilst the Act has clear weaknesses, the RSPCA supports the stated intention in the Act itself, 'to prohibit … possession or custody of dogs belonging to types bred for fighting'".
I remind those who have perhaps not been so mixed up in this subject as others that it is the actual name of pit hull terrier that shows the origin of the dog. It was in the pit bull rings of ancient days when they were first bred in this country. They were sent to America. Incidentally, a bitch and a dog were brought over here in about 1970 and the dog was given the rather suggestive name of "Capone". Noble Lords will remember the man of that name who lived in the United States.
The RSPCA supports the principle that it is the owner rather than the dog who should bear the full weight of the law. I agree with that. As regards the compulsory destruction order, I believe that we probably have agreement among most noble Lords speaking in this debate. There is an inherent difficulty with this breed which has been mentioned before. Some owners who did not believe that they were pit bull owners did not consider registration. Therefore, from that time forth they have been keeping the dog at home. They dare not even take it to the vet in case a certain situation should arise. The fear of compulsory destruction has a detrimental effect on all these dogs.
I wondered how that problem was to be got round. I entirely endorse the suggestion and commend to the Government the idea that the problem can be overcome if the courts have discretion as to whether or not to destroy a dog. A guilty plea could, at the discretion of the court, be met with a fine and—this is the important point—the return of the dog to the owner only after tattooing, registering, neutering and insuring the dog at the owner's expense. To my mind that is very sensible and would obviate a great number of the problems which have been raised by people who have become mixed up in this very difficult Act.
In defence of the present situation, I say this: my police friends tell me that in the 15 months before this Act was passed there were 903 incidents with dangerous dogs in London. Fifteen months after the Act only 143 dogs had been seized in London, so there has been a very considerable improvement. When dealing with this Act we have to consider the question of priorities. Are we thinking of humans or dogs or are we trying to find a solution which caters for both aspects? I know where my sympathy lies, but there is something for the other side. Therefore, I commend to the Government the suggestion that compulsory sentencing should be abolished.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for drawing attention to the pitfalls of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I certainly share the noble Lord's concern.
Before I express my own reservations as to how this Act has been interpreted, I must stress that I am totally in favour of eliminating fighting dogs from this country. Of course we the public should be protected from potentially dangerous dogs on the loose, and I suppose the Act does attempt to deal with this. However, having said that, I do not agree with wholesale destruction. The Act was rushed through Parliament in the summer of 1991 as an understandable—I repeat "understandable"—response to growing public demand following the horrific injuries to young Ruskhsana Khan and Mr. Tempest.
Registration of these pit bull terriers has created a number of problems. The application form had to be accompanied by proof of neutering, microchipping, tattooing and third party insurance; and in addition there was the expense. Then, finally, an exemption certificate was issued. I do, however, understand that the 30th November deadline was extended to 25th February 1992, for tattooing only. Nevertheless, quite a few procedures had to be followed.
In the early days of this Act a number of mistakes were made over identification by members of the general public. We all read about the sad tale of the Staffordshire bull terrier bitch who was clubbed to death by men who unlawfully entered the flat where she lived with her owners. Also we have read stories of terrified owners whose dogs were attacked by strangers who could not properly identify them. Then of course there was the Dempsey case. That concerned a young man who was walking his aunt's dog, Dempsey, and who removed its muzzle to allow it to be sick after coughing. A court appearance followed and, with it, a conditional discharge. However, the end result was a destruction order. Fortunately, to date the order has not been carried through, but that unfortunate dog has been in custody for eight months without seeing its owner.
It is worth mentioning that when cases do come to court and the plea is "not guilty", the result is often that much time is spent at huge cost to the taxpayer and the inevitable destruction order for the dog is made at the end. It seems that the only punishment the magistrates have available to them is destruction. When it is an innocent dog which is in question this punishment seems rather draconian, to say the least.
A modest amendment to the Act to allow courts to have discretion over sentencing rather than compelling them to issue destruction orders would go a long way towards improving the operation of the Act. Responsible owners who are guilty of error or omission should have a chance to be treated with sympathy. For example, in one case a dog whose owner had completed all other stages required for registration but who temporarily could not afford the £25 for insurance was faced with a destruction order. The owner then offered to pay but was refused.
In another case, a young nanny was given a puppy for Christmas without knowing its breed. When she

943
discovered that the dog resembled a pit bull terrier she took the dog to the police, to the Wood Green Animal Refuge and to a vet (who incidentally diagnosed the dog as a mongrel). She had the dog microchipped, tattooed and spayed but, unfortunately for her, she was too late to register it under the terms of the Act. Then the dog escaped and was taken to a police station. She, the owner, was prosecuted and a destruction order followed. That is now under appeal but it means that yet another dog is in custody.
These two illustrations show that responsible owners can get caught out by the Act, with no opportunity to bring themselves within the law. Surely there must be some discretion for those people who, through ignorance, fear or sheer inability to understand the procedure in order to obtain an exemption certificate, find themselves in a Catch-22 situation. Fearing the consequences, some owners hide their dogs, which of course means that the dogs do not get the necessary attention, not to mention exercise. The fear of prosecution is great, as it is a criminal offence, and if they are discovered the inevitable result again is a destruction order, rather than a fine and a chance to register, albeit late.
I am not referring to the rotten owners at the other end of the scale who breed dogs solely to fight and kill. I suspect they are known to the police and to the RSPCA, and dealt with accordingly. I think it is the grey area in the middle that has to be addressed. What is needed is the possibility of a compassionate reprieve to flush out these people and help them to register and play their part so that they can be assisted to keep within the letter of the law.
Another point I should like to make concerns Section 3(3) (b) of the Dangerous Dogs Act. This concerns the ability of an individual to complain that a dog has given him or her grounds for reasonable apprehension, and not that he or she has actually been attacked. Now, if I were a dog-hater, how tempting it would be to embellish the truth, because after all it would be my word against the owner. Truly I do not believe that it is the intention of this Act to give an opportunity to an intolerant person to use the law to his or her own advantage.
Finally, as I said before, I do support the primary intention of this Act, though not its interpretation. I hope that the Government will modify it, humanise it, and recognise that in its wake it has created unnecessary suffering to owners and pets alike. It has cast a stigma on certain owners, made criminals of others and made some feel like social outcasts. In the light of experience, some flexibility incorporated into this Act would strengthen it, would improve its operation in the courts and would encourage responsible dog ownership. In conclusion, I hope that Ministers in another place will give a sympathetic hearing to my noble friend's Bill to establish a proper dog control and welfare council.
6.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss the
944
problem of dangerous dogs. Of course we discussed it before the legislation came onto the statute book, and I think that he and I now share views on the way in which the legislation has worked. I would not put it quite as strongly as the noble Lord, but then I do not have as much experience of legislation as the noble Lord has acquired over his long and distinguished career.
In the relatively short time that I have been in your Lordships' House, this is one of the most ludicrous pieces of legislation. Of course it was a missed opportunity, because in an island such as ours, with so little space and with a population which generally has a great affection for pets of all kinds, it is certain that trouble will develop sooner or later and the dogs have to be kept under control. Also, the owners of pets have to be kept under control.
This legislation was rushed through, probably in reaction to a good deal of newspaper comment, particularly in the tabloid press, about some very distressing events which took place, resulting in serious injuries to people, including children. The Government took those unhappy events, together with the problem of fighting pit bull terriers, and tried to deal with the whole problem at the same time. That was probably a mistake. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, mentioned the evils of fighting dogs. I agree absolutely with her and I think that the Government was right to seek to legislate for that. However, the problems of protecting the public against dangerous dogs which are out of the control of their owners go much wider than the incidents involving pit bull terriers, whatever a pit bull terrier may be.
Of course, the problem with this legislation, as we foresaw—and the results have been even more drastic than we expected—is that it has been virtually impossible for anybody, even an expert, with any certainty to identify a pit bull terrier. An enormous amount of money and time has been spent on deciding what these dogs look like.
There are general guidelines to police officers, who are already under a good deal of stress, because their time is taken up with many duties. Police officers who are not adequately trained for the job have to decide whether a dog is of the kind specified in the Act. They have very little to go on. They know that, by and large, pit bull terriers have wedged shaped heads, bristly coats and a certain conformation, which can be recognised, but which they share with Staffordshire bull terriers. Originally, some 12 or 13 years ago, three American pit bull terriers were introduced into this country and inevitably bred with other dogs. Pit bull terriers are, in any case, cross-breeds, so the problem of identification is compounded. Therefore, any certainty in identification is now impossible.
Under the Act, a responsibility is placed upon an owner whose dog has got itself into trouble through not conforming with the very strict requirements of the Act to prove that his dog is not a pit bull terrier. In one local authority, five dogs have been taken by the police and are awaiting appeal procedures. The kennelling costs have now risen to about £10,000. Quite apart from the cost, it surely cannot be right to keep dogs in kennels awaiting such results. It is hardly

945
right to keep human beings for the length of time that they are often kept when awaiting trial. Apart from the welfare of the dogs (which was mentioned in the extremely authoritative speech that one would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby) the effect that the Act has had on the reputation of the Staffordshire bull terrier has been quite frightening. There is enormous alarm among respectable breeders of Staffordshire bull terriers about their dogs and possible mistakes with identification.
Apart from the difficulties encountered by the police, local authorities have no statutory obligation to ensure that the Act is enforced within their areas. Some enforce it and some do not. Part of the problem is that some areas have good dog warden schemes, whereas others do not. Some local authorities make this a priority and have funds at their disposal for this purpose; but some do not. I have received a good deal of information from West Yorkshire where an extremely effective scheme is in progress.
I know that I shall get the same answer from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, as I get from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because, if I may say so, both have an urbane and extremely agreeable way of dealing with such questions. Although I know what answer I shall get, I should still like to ask the noble Viscount whether it is not now clear that the very adamant and intransigent attitude of the Government to suggestions that we should have a registration scheme needs to be looked at again. It is essential that owners and dogs are related one to the other. One can do that only with a registration scheme. I know what the noble Viscount will say because it is always said. Indeed, it is probably written on his briefing papers. He will say that the problem is that the people whom one is interested in do not register. I have it on very good authority from Bradford in West Yorkshire that some 10,000 people have subscribed to the voluntary registration scheme there, and that quite a number of those dogs have been involved in one problem or another. Therefore, although I do not accept the Government's view that only respectable people will register their dogs and that the others will go underground, I should like to know whether the Minister can give me any encouragement on that subject.
As it stands, the Act is unfair. As was said or at least implied by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it condemns a dog for being what it is and for being in the hands of an irresponsible owner. That is not the way to go on. I suppose that the noble Viscount will say that the Act has been successful because there has been a great reduction in the number of cases involving pit bull terriers. However, the draconian nature of the legislation means that many of these dogs are kept out of sight. If they come out, it is at night and people are terrified. But attacks on people still continue—but by other breeds of dog. It is not just the pit bull terrier. Failing to recognise that fact is one of the great flaws of the Act.
I try these days to be practical and constructive, so if the noble Viscount cannot give me any comfort on the question of registration, does he agree with me on this point: that we should at least go part way towards
946
registration, and that if an owner has been convicted of an offence (in other words, if he has been convicted of having a dog that is out of control), he must have that dog registered and identified? That dog and that owner can then be kept under observation. It is important to note that if a dog is either electronically tagged or is tattooed, everybody will know about its history even if it is passed to another owner. That part-registration would satisfy me although I hope that it would lead to a full registration scheme in due course. That is what I am offering as a constructive suggestion this evening.
It is not the dogs which are at fault; it is the people who are involved with them. That is always the case. I am afraid that this legislation is almost as laughable as the football legislation which did not reach the statute book because a terrible disaster occurred and created a situation which led to recommendations that it should not reach the statute book. If there had been a terrible tragedy, such as a child being eaten in Richmond Park by two rottweilers, one wonders whether this legislation might not have gone through in its present form; but it has done so. I hope that the Government will react to the universal criticism of it, and that they will get down to modifying it and making it more sensible.
6.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has an unrivalled record of crusading for libertarian causes and it has been my privilege on occasion to be associated with him in those crusades, and particularly in relation to animal welfare. Those who have followed his career and his crusades will not have been disappointed by the speech with which he introduced this debate.
If we are to debate these matters rationally, we must remember the origins of the Bill and the almost universal revulsion that was felt in the Summer of 1991 at particular cases, especially that of young Rukhsana Khan, who was savagely mutilated by a fighting dog. One must remember the almost irresistible wave of revulsion which led the Government to introduce this undoubtedly hasty and undoubtedly inadequately considered legislation. However, one must also remember that the revulsion was very precise. People felt, and the Government were persuaded (and most Members of both your Lordships' House and of another place were persuaded that they were right) that something had to be done before a dog bit or mutilated a child instead of waiting for that to happen and hoping that it could be put right afterwards, because it cannot be put right.
The inevitable conclusion was that an attempt had to be made to identify types of dog. It is not enough to identify an individual dog which is known to be aggressive or dangerous; there has to be an attempt to identify a type of dog which is liable to be aggressive or dangerous. That gets us into very difficult waters. In its considered views on the operation of the Act, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made it very clear that there are no simple solutions to legislation which attempts to be specific about breeds. They are not discrete and finite; there

947
are mongrels between breeds. It is not always possible to say with clarity what is not a particular breed. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, described the valuable work undertaken in helping the police to identify dogs of a particular breed and he outlined some of the difficulties involved. But the public required that the attempt should be made. Nothing that I would wish to say from this Dispatch Box would in any way seek to reopen that issue. No longer can we accept that dogs bred for fighting can be allowed without control onto our streets or anywhere where people are vulnerable to attacks.
The second issue that we should examine is the working of the Act. It is disappointing that there has not been a debate on the subject this afternoon. We have heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence but we have heard no evidence about such simple issues as the number of cases brought, the number of dogs destroyed and the number of exemption orders made, let alone evidence about the number of attacks on people by dogs of fighting breeds. I hope that the Minister will remedy that fault.
The matter was raised by Mr. Andrew Bowden in another place on 4th November last year. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Home Office did not seek to bring evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of the Act in terms of any decline in the number of attacks or the statistics of the operation of the Act. He pursued the same anecdotal line which Mr. Bowden had pursued in his attack on the workings of the Act. I should like to see many more facts before being persuaded that there are any benefits from the Act. If there are benefits, I should like to see more detailed evidence of its operation before being persuaded that there should be particular changes to it.
There is no doubt that the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA have studied the issues in detail. I know that a number of lawyers have also paid great attention to them. No doubt due to the haste with which the Act was produced there are a number of aspects which are offensive to those who wish to see a satisfactory criminal law. Mandatory sentences are unsatisfactory unless there is absolutely no alternative. When I hear the RSPCA arguing that there is an effective alternative to the mandatory destruction order, and that there might be advantages because it would avoid pleas of not guilty and it might increase the respect for the law, I believe that the Government should seriously look at that.
I listened to the arguments about the length of time in which dogs are held in detention. I listened to the arguments about dogs being released on bail. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and suspect that it is too easy for those dogs to disappear, or to be reported as lost or dead, and never turn up again. There is no particular advantage in that kind of remedy. There are delays in the law but that is a general problem. Delays in such cases appear to be caused by continuing appeals lodged by the dog owners.
On practical grounds there may well be a case for reopening the index of exempt dogs and the
948
Government should take that seriously. In 1991 it was right that there should be a time limit because that was the stick which was needed to force registration. It could no doubt have been extended for months and years. It is not unreasonable to expect that there were some errors and that for genuine reasons some people failed to obtain an exemption order. A limited reopening of the index would be perfectly consistent with amnesty principles.
Hasty legislation will always be difficult and there will always be problems with its detailed drafting. If there are to be changes, my sole plea is that the Government should bear in mind the fundamental principle on which the legislation was based; that there should not be dogs bred for fighting in this country. The object of the legislation should be to make dogs bred for fighting extinct. The protection of the people of this country should be the first priority.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising this important matter in this short debate. It is a subject on which he has always shown a particularly keen and knowledgeable interest. I know from recent discussions with him about his Dog Control and Welfare Bill, which received its Third Reading in your Lordships' House just two months ago, that he has been following closely the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and how it has been operating.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that I fully appreciate the depth of feeling and concern which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has expressed about the Act. However, it is important to remember why the Government decided that such a measure was necessary.
In 1990, as a result of substantial public concern about irresponsible dog ownership and increased numbers of attacks by dogs on the public, the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs. The document proposed a number of measures to bring about better control of dogs and penalties for irresponsible dog owners. The responses showed support for such measures.
The following year a number of serious and horrific attacks by dangerous dogs on both adults and children demonstrated that the Government needed to take action to give the public protection against that danger. There was particular concern about types of dogs specially bred for fighting, such as the pit bull terrier. The attacks carried out by those types of dog demonstrated their ferocious, unpredictable and savage nature and made it clear that special controls had to be introduced on fighting dogs.
The Act places special controls on any dog of the types known as the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the fila Braziliero. Under Section 2 of the Act the Home Secretary may introduce restrictions on any other types of dog which are considered to be specially dangerous. Section 3 of the Act deals with any type of dog which is dangerously out of control either in a public place or in any other place where it is not permitted to be. It is

949
not necessary for a dog to injure a person in order for Section 3 to apply. That section applies where there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure someone.
Taken as a whole, the Act deals with the particular problem of fighting dogs and also with dangerous dogs. The aim of the Act is to provide adequate protection to the public from any dog which is a danger and to encourage more responsible dog ownership. I readily acknowledge that many dog owners take their responsibility seriously. But, equally, there are some dog owners who do not show the same degree of responsibility. The Act should encourage all owners of dogs to exercise proper control of their dogs while in public.
The 1991 Act also clarifies the powers of the court to make an order under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 to control dangerous dogs. Where a court receives a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make an order irrespective of whether the dog has injured anyone. An order under the 1871 Act can specify the measures to he taken for keeping the dog under proper control. This could be by muzzling, keeping it on a lead or excluding it from certain places. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house, and it is especially useful for action on behalf of postmen and women who are regularly at risk from attacks by dogs in front gardens.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded us, it is important not to forget the anxiety which motivated this legislation. The attacks which had occurred underlined the presence of—and the threat from—fighting dogs in this country. We took the view—and I believe there was resounding support for it—that such animals have no place in our society. Breeding them is cruel to the dogs themselves, as well as to anyone (man or beast) who may have the misfortune to get in their way. Vigorous action was needed.
We could, broadly, have decided to go in one of two directions. One would have been to seek the immediate destruction of all such animals, to end the problem once and for all. But we chose instead the more compassionate approach: existing animals would be allowed to remain alive, provided that they were neutered and kept under strictly prescribed controls. For that policy to be effective, it was necessary to have tough sanctions on those who ignored the specified controls, and a stringent registration and marking system. There had to be no possibility of pit bull types being perpetuated. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, agreed that fighting dogs must not be bred.
Under the 1991 Act, it is an offence to possess a specially controlled dog or to breed from, sell, exchange or make a gift of such a dog. However, the law does permit owners of specially controlled dogs to keep them on condition that they comply with the strict requirements contained in the legislation.
The 1991 Act makes it an offence to have a specially controlled dog, such as the pit bull terrier, unless a certificate of exemption has been obtained in respect
950
of it. The exemption scheme provided that owners could keep their dogs on condition that they obtained a certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, owners had to have arranged for the dog to be neutered, permanently implanted with a microchip, tattooed and covered by third party insurance, and have paid a fee. The certificate of exemption lasts for the lifetime of the dog provided that the requirements of the certificate are met, including a requirement that the dog must be muzzled and kept on a lead in a public place. If any of the requirements are breached, the certificate lapses and the dog is no longer exempt. Owners of these dogs who did not wish to have their dogs exempted under the law were given the choice of exporting them or having the dogs destroyed. Those people who had their dogs destroyed by a specified date were eligible for compensation.
At the time the legislation was being prepared, it was estimated that there were between 5,000 and 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country. In the event, over 8,000 dogs were notified to the police and the index of exempted dogs. Some 5,300 certificates have been issued of which 5,000 are currently valid.
The Government believe that the provisions of the Act and the exemption scheme are operating well. We remain convinced that we were right to respond to public anxiety in this way. I know of no evidence to suggest that the public believes that children, adults and animals are now any less worthy of protection against dangerous dogs than when Parliament agreed the measure. The public quite rightly continues to look to the Government to provide protection against dangerous dogs.
Obviously familiarisation with the provisions has taken a little time—as with any new piece of legislation —but none of the difficulties calls in question the fundamental need for this law. It would be irresponsible to lessen the level of protection which the Act provides. We therefore have no plans at this stage to amend it.
The question of identifying pit bull terriers has been raised, and I appreciate that this is not as straight forward a process as one might wish. The pit bull terrier is not recognised as a breed in this country and so there is no breed standard for the dog. As a result the expression "type" is used in the Act. This was necessary since it was important for the legislation to cover all the animals with the characteristics of pit bulls, if we were to ensure full protection for the public.
We have always recognised that the identification of pit bull terriers may be complex. That is why we sent a detailed description of the pit bull terrier type to the courts and the police, when the Act came into force, and reinforced this with further advice in August last year.
The identification process may take place at a number of stages. It is initially a matter for the police or local authority dog wardens to take a view on whether a dog is or is not a pit bull terrier. The prosecuting authorities will have to decide whether the public interest is best served by bringing a prosecution. Where a case reaches the courts it is open

951
to either side to bring forward any evidence which they feel is relevant to the matter of identification. This may include calling expert witnesses. It is right, however, that the final decision about whether or not a dog is a pit bull terrier should lie with the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, may be aware of the terms of a press release issued by the RSPCA last week, which called upon the Government to adopt the guidelines for identification of pit bull terriers, as drawn up by the American Dog Breeders Association. I understand that RSPCA inspectors, who are called upon to identify pit bull terriers, use those guidelines already. As the Government have made plain, we are always ready to listen to those who wish to offer constructive comments on the Act, and we shall certainly be giving serious consideration to the help which the guidelines may give. Officials will discuss these guidelines with the RSPCA.
I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior said about the British Veterinary Association's suggestions on identification. Of course, that is a subject about which he knows a great deal. The advice which the Home Office issued when the Act came into force subsequently guided the courts on the various factors which might be taken into account. They included physical features, pedigree, behaviour and so on. That was fairly comprehensive advice but we should be grateful for any further suggestions. We shall consider whether any further advice might be appropriate in the light of any suggestions which we might receive.
Still on the subject of identification, we are aware of the anxiety which has been expressed by owners of Staffordshire bull terriers that their dogs may be mistakenly identified as a pit bull terrier. The Staffordshire bull terrier breed is not specially controlled for the purposes of Section 1 of the Act. That is why, as part of our recent further advice on the operation of the Act, we have included clarification on how the law affects pit bull crosses. We have also provided a list, provided by the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breed Council, of clubs which are willing to give advice to police, local authority dog wardens or the courts if there is doubt about whether a dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier.
Another area where anxiety has been expressed is the absence of any discretion for the courts, which are required to order the destruction of a dog where one of the main offences under the Act has been committed. We are well aware of the view, advanced in the debate tonight, that the courts should be given discretion whether or not to order the destruction of a dog.
I do appreciate the arguments in favour of such a change, and why this matter is causing the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, particular anxiety. While the destruction of any dog must be a matter of regret, the Government remain of the opinion that this must be the result for dangerous dogs where the courts find that one of the main offences—an aggravated offence —has been committed under the Act.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be disappointed by that response. Once
952
again, we have to recall the underlying objective behind the provision—to provide a stiff incentive on owners to comply with the letter of the law, and to ensure that those who have shown themselves irresponsible by not doing so do not remain in charge of these potentially lethal animals. For the latter would be the effect if discretion were allowed. If the court had the discretion not to order destruction the dog would, of course, be returned to its convicted owner, who had shown that he had not been responsible enough to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Let us imagine the scenario for a moment. A dog is returned to an irresponsible owner, who again fails to comply with the strict requirements of the legislation, but perhaps this time the dog actually attacks a person and inflicts serious injury. Unpredictability is a feature of these animals. The public would ask with every justification why Parliament had decided to relax the strict controls. There would be demands for the controls to be re-introduced to avoid the situation arising again.
It has also been suggested that there should be an amnesty in order to allow owners of unregistered specially controlled dogs to register and obtain certificates of exemption for them. The requirements of the exemption scheme were widely publicised when the legislation was before Parliament, and subsequently. No dog owner could have been unaware of the provisions or of the time limits for registration and other action. In excess of 8,000 owners of specially controlled dogs registered their dogs with the police and the index of exempted dogs at the time. Because some owners were experiencing difficulty having their dogs tattooed within the deadline, the Government extended the date for tattooing by three months to enable owners to comply with the requirements. This demonstrates that we have listened and responded to difficulties.
We are being asked to introduce an amnesty to allow owners a further opportunity to obtain an exemption for their dogs. If we had an amnesty for late registration now, why not another one later for those who subsequently claim to have been unaware of the new deadline? And another one after that? The point is that the registration scheme was a concession prior to the coming into force of the full control regime. It would make a mockery of the legislation to allow for late registration. Given the publicity which surrounded the introduction of the Act and its provisions, no owners should have been unaware of their responsibilities towards their dogs.
The Government are very aware of the criticisms which are being made of the Act and of the calls for certain amendments to be made. I understand the anxieties which have been expressed in your Lordships' House during the course of this debate. But I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the undertaking which he would like—that the Government will introduce amendments. I have listened to noble Lords' views with interest. The operation of the Act is kept under review and the

953
views expressed by noble Lords today will be borne in mind, as are the views of all those who wish to comment on the Act.
I shall now respond to some of the specific points that have been made. My noble friend asked me whether veterinary surgeons should examine dogs when they have been seized. That is a matter for each chief police officer. I understand that as regards the Metropolitan Police each of the kennels used to house seized dogs has its own veterinary surgeon. All seized dogs are vaccinated on admission to the kennels. The Metropolitan Police employ independent veterinary surgeons to carry out regular checks of the kennels to make sure that each dog is in good health and properly cared for. In addition Metropolitan Police experts visit seized dogs to ensure they are being properly looked after.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, asked about the length of time seized dogs are kept in police custody. As I have said, a Home Office circular about the operation of the Act was sent to the police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service last August. It draws attention to the undesirability of delays in bringing cases to trial resulting in the need for dogs to he kenneled for long periods. The advice refers to the need for courts to give consideration to the well-being of the dog as well as to the resource implications where prolonged kenneling arises. The circular invites courts to consider how cases might be expedited.
I was also asked about access to seized dogs. We feel this is a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned. However, allowing owners to visit their dogs could raise serious security and other problems in some circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about dog registration. The Government's policy on dog registration is clear. We regard it as an expensive, bureaucratic procedure which in practical terms will not assist in the control of dogs. Where instances involving attacks by dangerous dogs have occurred, ownership of a dog has not been at issue. Registration would therefore add nothing to the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act. I should tell the noble Viscount that the courts are empowered to disqualify a person from having future custody of a dog for a specified period under the Act.
It is only right that all areas of the law, particularly those which are still new, should be scrutinised. But I must ask noble Lords to remember why the special controls were introduced. The public looks to the Government to provide protection in this as in other areas. That indeed is one of the first tasks of government, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not afford it first priority. The Government remain of the view that the Act was necessary, and that it provided a fair balance between the interests of dog owners and those of society at large. We remain open to constructive criticism and suggestions, but I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, we are not yet persuaded of the need for amendments. I always listen closely to what the noble Lord says, and I hope I have responded to his anxieties. He is a lion who will never be subjugated as he suggested.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Some speakers were able to speak for a little longer than they thought and some interesting light has been thrown on the administration of this Act. My noble friend on the Front Bench asked for facts and figures. There are no facts or figures, or very few. I have been trying to get facts and figures for a long time but the trouble apparently is that many of the statistics are in the hands of individual courts and are not centrally collected. I was hoping that we would obtain some indication from this debate of the factual material which the Home Office is gathering to enable judgment to be made on the working of the Act. When we make a closer examination of these matters—we shall certainly do so in the not too distant future—we shall lack information which is essential to a study of the issue.
We have heard about public concern in relation to dangerous dogs biting children. There is not the slightest doubt that the tabloid press belted and bullied the Home Secretary of the day until he completely lost his head. He blurted out to all concerned that mass execution was the solution. I believe that that disqualifies the Government from posing as a virtuous Government who guard the public against dangerous dogs.
I remind the noble Viscount that between 1971 and 1991 the governments of the day did not introduce a single Act relating to dangerous dogs. They regarded dogs as a matter for Private Bill procedures and they never introduced any measures of their own. I introduced into your Lordships' House the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. That Bill had been cobbled together in consultation between the department and various dog interests. That Bill was put forward as a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons. It received a reasonable passage and finally came to this House for approval. That was not the Government's initiative and they allocated no time to that Bill. It had to take its chance under the Private Member's Bill procedure in the House of Commons. We know what a hazardous life Private Member's Bills have in the House of Commons. No virtue whatever attaches to the Government as regards this matter. It was not until public opinion was being galvanised into deep concern by the tabloid press and the media that the Home Office began to wake up.
Therefore, I feel a little cross when the noble Viscount stands there and reads a brief which suggests that he has a gang of virtuous people behind him who have been doing their best to protect the public from dangerous dogs. That is not so. The Government would not move. One has only to remember the antics they went through on the registration scheme and the lengths to which they went to defeat the vote in the House of Lords on the registration scheme, which was tacked on to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government spent an enormous sum of money bringing back Ministers from all over the world to defeat the intention of the House of Commons to

955
introduce a national registration scheme. Therefore, a little humility would be worth considering in this connection.
My next important point concerns the fact that there is no machinery for dealing with the problem publicly in any representative way. The Home Office is notorious for uncertain stability among its senior civil servants dealing with particular problems. I know for certain that the senior official who was employed mainly on the dangerous dogs legislation had been transferred from his work as secretary to the Procedures Committee set up under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. No one deals with such matters for long enough.
The House has already passed a Dog Control and Welfare Bill, which was modelled on the Farm Animal Welfare Council. That is a representative body and its members are hand-picked by the Minister who appoints it. It reports freely and publicly on its work. However, in the Home Office everything is secret. The Home Office says: "We are keeping the matter under review". That does not mean anything at all except that they keep on thinking about it. There is no review in progress. It is nonsense to say that the matter is constantly under review.
The Home Office says that it is constantly receiving information. If we had a dog control and welfare council, that body could review matters in a way which the public would understand. It would have to consider seriously whether there was adequate statistical material to work on. How many dogs bite how many people? Who bites whom? Which dogs are doing the biting? How many times do they bite? Nobody knows anything about the number of bites which dogs inflict on people.
The only information which I have in that respect comes from a survey undertaken by a veterinary surgeon in the Midlands of all the cases dealt with by a plastic surgery unit in the Wordsley Hospital in Bromsgrove, Birmingham, between 1982 and 1989. It covered the cases of people who had been bitten by dogs and whose injuries were sufficiently serious to require plastic surgery. The survey was representative of a comparatively small number; it revealed only 147 cases in seven or eight years. The figures were published in the Veterinary Record of 12th December 1991. However, the extraordinary fact to emerge from that survey was that most of the cases occurred in the dogs' own homes. That matter requires closer investigation because it may be that families are more at risk than the public generally.
956
The survey showed that more than half the people who had been treated at the hospital in those years for dog bites were children under 15 years of age. Of those children, more than half were bitten at their own home, or at the home of a neighbour or friend. Even a high proportion of the adults sustained the bites in the home. Therefore attention may have to be given to the types of dog which are kept in homes and how they are treated and whether they have any training.
We are ignorant about dogs. We are supposed to be discussing man's best friend and we assume that man knows how to treat his best friend. A good deal more advice and guidance is necessary on the place of dogs in homes and society, especially in relation to children. It seems that one of the main reasons why dogs bite children is that dogs are not taught how to treat children and children are not taught how to treat dogs. There is scope for a good deal of investigation there.
Your Lordships' House passed a measure approving a dog control and welfare council. The Government were not enthusiastic about it and said that they could not spare any more money. Millions of pounds have been spent in connection with this measure. One has only to think of all the expenses being incurred at present.
I have brought the matter before the All Party Group on Animal Welfare, which is representative of Members of Parliament and of both Houses, and we shall have to consider what we do next. It may be that in order to achieve further discussion of the whole subject, some of us should get together and draft a Private Member's Bill, introduce it into your Lordships' House and see what we can achieve in that way. I feel that the Government are not being straight, either with the public or with us, in relation to their ability and their desire to deal with the matter in any more liberal a spirit than they have adopted so far.
In all the circumstances, I shall reluctantly beg leave to withdraw my Motion. I assume that I am moving for Papers. Those Papers are very elusive; we never seem to see them. I thought that I might suggest that we had the Papers for a change, but I do not want to put the House to that trouble. There would probably be nothing on them if we had them or we would merely be handed the speech which the noble Viscount has just delivered.
I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers, and I promise that I shall be back.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.